Coping with Expectations

The Spanish far-left party Podemos must include in its analysis the key points that led Obama to the White House in 2007. However, the mobilizing effect of the Internet implies some risk and can have counter-productive effects.

The start for Podemos within the systemic political game has been compared to a tsunami’s unexpected force. Today, undoubtedly, we are facing a critical transition without knowing its direction. It is clear, though, that some ruptures have been created within dominant certainties, and in the typical ways of perceiving and describing those things.

The last two polls from the Spanish [independent research] body CIS point out that a change has occurred that could disrupt the traditional interrelationships among political parties. The information shown by these polls indicates a phenomenon that, for the time being, can be regarded as a trend. We cannot explain why Podemos’s leaders are succeeding in getting through the clutter of forces that surrounds the political establishment.

Podemos is being compared with the Spanish Socialist Worker’s Party (PSOE) from the ‘80s due to the shift its start brought to Spanish history. While searching for examples and models, it is common to characterize Podemos as a populist political force, similar to Bolivarianism.

However, it is striking not to find in the core of the analysis the phenomenon that is probably named after this party. We are referring to the key points of the political process that led a young black candidate named Barack Hussein Obama to the center of American politics in the 2007 presidential primaries, obtaining the Democratic nomination to the presidency in record time. Focusing on that unstoppable career rather than on the PSOE from the 1980s or Bolivarian populism would help us better understand what is happening. Let’s explain why.

According to sociologist Manuel Castells, the campaign inspired by Obama went beyond him and his political program in many ways. This success can be explained by three factors that we find in Podemos’s successful trajectory: Firstly, the combination of the leader’s undeniable charisma with a new political rhetoric; secondly, the mobilization of marginalized groups or groups that are disillusioned with traditional politics, as well as the special connection with young people, young culture and people with a higher education level; thirdly, the skill of working with social networks.

All these elements redrew the American political map, as it is happening now in Spain. One of the driving forces of that shift lies in the strengths of charisma and personality. Having an uncommon and attractive personality, skills for public speaking and a pulling power were some of Obama’s qualities. His speeches, similar to those of Pablo Iglesias, were sensationalist and ready-made as high-impact headlines. The importance [of these speeches] was essential, as it [ushered in] a new political language.

Obama, just like Pablo Iglesias, abandoned the left-right axis even though his background showed a tendency to vote for left-wing bills. The coordinates that identified Obama’s alignment were not these but a focus on the future, as opposed to the past. Similarly, the fundamental key in Pablo Iglesias’s successful speech is the need for change, the need for building a majority that is motivated by issues concerning the daily lives [of people] — the famous “centrality in politics.”

Obama’s ability was confirmed when he mixed a radical criticism of the establishment with a moderate political speech. This “ambivalence,” as Castells maintains, made him more sensitive to attacks from the left and the right. However, paradoxically, it turned out to be one of the strengths of his strategy. His ambivalence regarding traditional definitions [surrounding] politics was construed as an open stance to the determination of the political field, to go beyond ideological gaps at a time when the goal is to be organized around a common purpose — the identification of a set of interests that lead to a change in which society will share. Future as opposed to the past.

This new speech has provided an important transfer of votes, as well as having mobilized disillusioned groups when the crisis of political legitimacy and growing disaffection is clear. This moment is similar to the context that the United States lived through following the dreadful lies about war and serious economic decline. According to [research group] CIS, abstention has dropped six points since January. This fact shows both the phenomenon of re-politicization and the check in disaffection indexes. This can be explained by the rise of [individual] involvement in the democratic process and the empowering effect of this involvement. As Castells states, “the power of the vote for those who do not have power” is now more valuable than ever — connecting people lacking authority with people who have it, and making these people feel like an important part of the process. One of Podemos’s master moves has been to connect that involvement with the belief that a change is possible, as Obama did.

This political awakening, as we said, cannot be explained without [considering] the mobilization of young people. Social networks have played a key role. For instance, general statistics show that Twitter users are mostly youngsters. As of today, Pablo Iglesias has 662,000 followers, whereas Socialist leader Pedro Sánchez has only 95,900. Twitter is a tool that Iglesias uses to upload videos with political content and send out messages in such a way that they generate opinion and mobilization. Both Obama’s candidacy and Podemos’s proposal are two paradigmatic examples of the perception of politics during the Internet era. Undoubtedly, this has been his main competitive advantage. As for Obama, it is something that remains his main political legacy.

Grassroots politics became real in terms of communication strategies and campaign funding (something fundamental but often forgotten), thanks to mobilization through social networks. It is important to remember that one of the unusual factors in backing Obama’s political project was that 90 percent of total donations were made on the Internet. As it happens with Podemos, this limited the influence of lobbies in his campaign and reinforced the support of people by involving them even more. By attracting those people, connecting them all together and organizing them according to their own interests, it was possible to adapt the messages to people’s concerns, and to gather hundreds of committed activists and thousands of active supporters. Thanks to this, it was possible to coordinate a local and a general strategy at the same time, something permitted exclusively by the Internet.

The focus that pits the future against the past becomes real thanks to the Internet. And it does so, in opposition to what some analysts are declaring, by placing hope in the core of the political speech. Obama said, “Yes, we can.” Hope and not fear. Hope connected with change. According to some research regarding [levels of] political cognition, this generates enthusiasm for a candidate. Positive messages full of hope, not anger.

Today, we know that all of this can turn against a candidate. Even though social networks have the power to mobilize, [people] can reverse that support if they notice policies with no principles are being adopted. The most difficult thing is not to create expectations but to cope with them; this is what we have learned from Obama’s campaign. The so-called policy of uprising does not cease with the means, which is electing the candidate, but must produce the change that people are longing for. We should all remember this.