PERSPECTIVE Democratic Expeditions Tracing illiberal talk How far-right rhetoric erodes ­democracy before policies change Lisa Zanotti and Hugo Marcos-Marné The internal structure of illiberal trends – and the words that lie behind On 6 January 2021, a mob stormed the US Capitol. Two years later, on 8 January 2023, a similar assault unfolded in Brazil’s Praça dos Três Poderes. These out breaks did not occur in a vacuum. Rather they oc curred in the wake of years of sustained rhetorical campaigns that delegitimised electoral processes, framed political opponents as existential threats, and normalised violence as a legitimate political tool. Be fore the assault on institutions came the assault on language. Nevertheless, democratic actors worldwide remain disproportionately focused on tracking policy changes – such as immigration restrictions, judicial appointments and media regulations – while the dis cursive groundwork for those policies lies in plain sight, normalised through repetition and diffused from the radical fringe to mainstream politics. To counter the illiberal consequences of the global far-right wave effectively, we must first understand language as its primary weapon. Why discourse matters more than we think Contemporary far-right parties rarely advocate democracy’s outright destruction. Unlike the fascist movements of the twentieth century, today’s illiberal actors work within dem ocratic systems, eroding them from the inside(Rovira Kalt wasser et al., 2024). Their strategies are subtler and, argua bly, more dangerous because they try to hide any elements that may be unacceptable to large sectors of the population. Such an approach relies on a sustained assault on the ­institutions and norms that protect minority rights, ensure judicial independence and guarantee a free press. All of this is conducted in language long before tangible illiberal policies and behaviours come into place. This matters for the simple reason that discourse does not require seizing control of the state. Opposition actors, Tracing illiberal talk – How far-right rhetoric erodes ­democracy before policies change 1

candidates without government power and extra-institu tional entrepreneurs can deploy illiberal frames to reshape what is considered legitimate, possible and even“common sense”(Newth and Scopelliti, 2025). Rhetorical strategies, unlike policy implementation, are low-cost and high-diffusion, which helps to explain why discursive erosion typically pre­ cedes institutional change. The“contagion effect” that far-right parties aim at is well-­ established. Research has documented how especially main stream conservative parties, under electoral pressure, tend to accommodate far-right positions by adopting restrictive platforms on immigration, crime and“sovereignty”(Meguid, 2008; Abou-Chadi and Krause, 2020). Our contribution seeks to trace it at the level of discourse, where the battle is fought first and where early intervention remains possible. What we measured: two pillars, seven arenas Drawing on Robert Dahl’s(1971) foundational work, we understand liberal democracy as resting on two necessary pillars: public contestation(can organised alternatives compete freely under protected civil and informational freedoms?) and inclusive participation(is suffrage broad and are elections clean?). We translated these pillars into seven concrete institutional arenas in which leaders signal their democratic commitments, or the lack thereof: Contestation: (i) civil liberties(speech, assembly, expression); (ii) media and alternative information(press freedom, pluralism); (iii) pluralism and opposition(legitimacy of rivals, accept ance of dissent); (iv) right to organise(unions, associations, protests); (v) checks and balances, and rule of law(judicial in­ dependence, horizontal accountability) Participation: (vi) electoral integrity(free and fair elections, contestation of office); (vii) inclusive citizenship(broad suffrage, membership ­criteria). Illiberal discourse thus comprises rhetoric that narrows contestation and/or restricts participation. Relevant and typical examples include delegitimising opponents, politi cising courts, pressuring the media, excluding minorities and questioning electoral legitimacy. Our analysis is based on thousands of elite interviews with political leaders spanning the ideological spectrum in Spain and Argentina. With these two cases we include variation in institutional design(parliamentarism vs presidentialism), far-right positioning(consolidated opposition vs insurgent victory) and mainstream-right structures(strong vs weak). For each leader, we measured both the intensity of illiberal cues(how extreme is the rhetoric) and their emphasis(how often deployed), enabling comparisons between and within contexts. We used a large language model(GPT-5) to code the inter view transcripts, treating each answer by a leader as one ob servation and identifying how often and how strongly illiber al rhetoric appeared. Each response was scored from 1(com pletely liberal) to 4(completely illiberal), across a total of 255 interviews and 2,572 individual responses. What we found: two patterns, one playbook Spain: a clear gradient The importance of illiberal discourse in Spain depends strongly on ideology. Santiago Abascal’s Vox scores highest in almost all dimensions, except for the‘alternative media’ one. The mainstream right leaders(from Partido Popular) 1 sit in the middle, noticeably elevated on alternative media but more moderate on rule of law and civil liberties. Left leaders remain consistently the most liberal across dimen sions(see Figure 1). This pattern sharpens when relative values are considered. Vox’s salience-weighted mean reaches 2.72 on contestation compared with the Left’s 1.81. Overall, approximately 84 per cent of illiberal rhetoric in Spain targets contestation (media, courts, pluralism) rather than participation. The message is clear: Spain’s illiberal playbook concentrates on delegitimising rivals, politicising courts and attacking press freedom, and these strategies are much more prevalent in far-right discourse. Argentina: a bipolar configuration Figure 2 shows that Argentina presents a more complex picture: a U-shaped pattern in which far-right and left-wing discourses 2 converge at similarly high illiberal levels, while the mainstream right anchors the liberal baseline. 1  The PP’s leaders we analysed are Pablo Casado and Alberto Nuñez de Feijó. 2  In our analysis, the left-wing leader under examination is Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, whereas on the centre-right we focus on Mauricio Macri. Tracing illiberal talk – How far-right rhetoric erodes ­democracy before policies change 2

Intensity of illiberal tendency in Spanish leaders’ discourse 2.9 2.4 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.4 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.8 Figure 1 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.3 1.3 1.1 Left Alternative Media Pluralism& Opposition Source: Authors’ elaboration. Conventional Right Civil Liberties Right to Organize Electoral Integrity Rule of Law Far-Right Inclusive Citizenship Intensity of illiberal tendency in Argentine leaders’ discourse 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.5 2.2 2.0 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.8 2.3 2.2 Figure 2 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.0 1.3 Left Alternative Media Pluralism& Opposition Source: Authors’ elaboration. Conventional Right Civil Liberties Right to Organize Electoral Integrity Rule of Law Far-Right Inclusive Citizenship Tracing illiberal talk – How far-right rhetoric erodes ­democracy before policies change 3

Javier Milei’s far-right illiberalism targets mainly media/­ alternative information and pluralism/opposition, but also the checks and balances/rule of law dimension. This is consistent with his anti-establishment, libertarian self-pres entation, which relies strongly on systematic delegitimisa tion of rivals. Surprisingly, the discourse of the Argentine left exhibits the highest illiberal means on checks and balances/rule of law and alternative media, indicating a tough stance towards judicial oversight and the information sphere. The discourse of the mainstream right(Juntos por el Cambio) is compara tively more liberal, especially regarding electoral integrity and inclusive citizenship. Weighted by emphasis, both the far right and the left reach overall levels around 2.65–2.66, driven primarily by their sustained focus on checks and balances, media and oppo sition. The mainstream right’s lower score(around 2.3) re flects both moderate intensity and a more balanced distri bution of rhetorical attention. The common thread Despite different configurations – Spain’s linear gradient vs Argentina’s bipolarity – an underlying pattern emerges here. Illiberalism is diffused through attacks on horizontal accountability and the information sphere. Leaders repeat edly advance non-trivial curbs or politicisation(scoring 2.3– 2.9 on our scale) in the areas associated with contestation. These mid-range illiberal cues, deployed frequently, matter even more than rare extreme statements because they normalise pressure on the information ecosystem, judicial independence and pluralism. Participation talk is sparse in both countries. When it ap pears, it contributes differently: Spain’s far right deploys distinctly exclusionary rhetoric on citizenship, while Argen tina’s patterns concentrate illiberalism in contestation regard less of bloc. Beyond intensity: the power of repetition Measuring how illiberal leaders sound is only half the story. We also need to know how often they deploy these frames. A leader might score moderately illiberal(around 2.5) when discussing courts or media, but if they return to these topics repeatedly, in interview after interview, that persistent mes saging shapes public discourse far more than occasional extreme statements. We therefore combined intensity with emphasis, weighting our scores by how frequently each leader discusses each institutional arena. This reveals two crucial patterns. First, illiberal discourse overwhelmingly targets contes tation, not participation. In Spain, approximately 84 per cent of coded mentions across all political blocs target contestation; in Argentina, the figure rises to roughly 90 per cent. Second, frequency amplifies risk. In Spain, once we account for emphasis, Vox’s weighted score on contestation reaches 2.72, compared with 1.81 for the left, a gap driven both by more illiberal content and more frequent deployment. The mainstream right sits at 2.37, suggesting some rhetorical accommodation. In Argentina, both the far right(Milei, 2.65) and the left(2.66) converge at similarly high levels when weighted by frequency, while the mainstream right remains lower at 2.30. These mid-range scores(2.3–2.9), re peated often enough, normalise pressure on democratic in stitutions without requiring extreme language in any single instance. Put simply, the illiberal playbook succeeds through repe tition. Mid-range attacks on courts, media and pluralism, deployed consistently across hundreds of interviews, mat ter more than rare incendiary statements. This is why early detection at the discursive level is essential; by the time policies change, the rhetorical battle has already been won. Why this matters: an early-warning system Our findings offer three critical insights for democratic ­defence: 1. The illiberal playbook is predictable. Far-right actors across contexts deploy remarkably similar rhetorical strategies: delegitimise rivals, politicise courts, attack media independence. This consistency makes the threat identifiable and therefore counterable. 2. Contagion is real, and traceable. Spain’s gradient pattern suggests mainstream-right accommodation of far-right rhetoric, particularly on media and checks and balances. Argentina’s weaker mainstream right shows how institu tional fragmentation affects contagion pathways, and might even show widespread contagion effects across the ideological spectrum. Understanding these dynam ics allows targeted intervention. 3. Discourse is an early-warning signal. By the time re strictive policies are passed, the discursive battle is ­already lost. Our framework functions as a diagnostic tool, identifying where illiberal rhetoric is being normal ised before it becomes law or even has violent non-­ institutional expressions. Recommendations: where to focus democratic defence Based on these findings, we recommend that policymakers and civil society prioritise: Tracing illiberal talk – How far-right rhetoric erodes ­democracy before policies change 4

→ Protect the information ecosystem. Media and alterna tive information is the most contested arena in both countries. Defend press freedom, support independent journalism and counter systematic delegitimisation of fact-based reporting. → Safeguard horizontal accountability. Attacks on judicial independence and checks/balances feature prominently across blocs. Strengthen institutional resilience, docu ment rhetorical assaults on courts, and build coalitions to defend the rule of law. → Monitor mainstream accommodation. Track whether cen tre-right parties adopt far-right framings. Early detection of contagion enables corrective messaging and coalition-­ building to resist normalisation. → Develop counter-narratives. Illiberal rhetoric succeeds by repetition. Democratic actors must proactively frame contestation and pluralism as strengths, not obstacles. By systematically measuring illiberal discourse, this approach begins to provide democratic actors with tools to identify vulnerabilities before they become crises. Expanding this framework to Italy, Brazil and beyond represents a next step toward mapping the global illiberal playbook and directing resources where they are most urgently needed. References Abou-Chadi, T. and Krause, W. (2020): The causal effect of radical right success on mainstream parties’ policy positions: A regression discontinui ty approach, in: British Journal of Political Science, 50(3): 829–847. Dahl, R. (1971): Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. Yale Univer sity Press. Meguid, B.M. (2008): Party competition between unequals: Strategies and electoral fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge University Press. Mudde, C. (2019): The far right today. Polity Press. Newth, G. and Scopelliti, A. (2025): Common sense, populism, and reac tionary politics on Twitter: An analysis of populist far-right common sense narratives between 2008 and 2022, in: Party Politics, 31(2): 375–391. Rovira Kaltwasser, C., Espinoza, G., Meléndez, C., Tanscheit, T. and Zanotti, L. (2024): Apoyo y rechazo a la ultraderecha: estudio comparado sobre Argentina, Brasil y Chile. Fundación Friedrich Ebert en Chile. Available at: https://library. fes. de/pdf-files/bueros/chile/21406. pdf. Tracing illiberal talk – How far-right rhetoric erodes ­democracy before policies change 5

About the author Lisa Zanotti is a researcher at the Central European University in Budapest, Hungary, and at the Institute for Social Science Research at Universidad Diego Portales. She is also a researcher at the Labora tory for the Study of the Far Right(Ultra-Lab) in Santiago, Chile. Her area of specialization is comparative politics, with a particular focus on party systems, populism, and radicalization processes, especially in relation to the far right in both Latin America and Western Europe. Her work has been published in journals such as Government& Opposition, Political Studies, Nations& Nationalism, among others. zanotti-anderloniL@ceu.edu Hugo Marcos-Marne is an Associate Professor of Political Science and a member of the Democracy Research Unit(DRU) at the Univer sity of Salamanca, Spain. His research specializes in voting behavior, public opinion, and political parties, with a particular focus on populist and radical parties. marcosmarne@usal.es About Democratic Expeditions This essay is based on the paper presented by the author at the workshop Contesting the Far Right, Safeguarding Democracy: Comparative Insights from Europe and Latin America. Convened by Daphne Halikiopoulou(University of York, UK) and Carlos Meléndez(CEU Democracy Institute, Budapest), the workshop took place at the CEU Democracy Institute in Budapest on 22 and 23 September 2025. It was the second edition of Democratic Expeditions, a series of openly sourced, carefully crafted inter national research workshops that shed light on underexplored issues of democratic crises and democratizing struggles. The ini tiative is a joint venture of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung’s Regional Office on Democracy of the Future in Vienna, the CEU Democra cy Institute, and the CEU Department of Political Science. Imprint Published by Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V. Godesberger Allee 149 53175 Bonn, Germany info@fes.de Issuing Department FES Regional Office for International Cooperation Democracy of the Future Reichsratsstr. 13/5 A-1010 Vienna Contact Filip Milačić filip.milacic@fes.de Design pertext| www.pertext.de The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung(FES) or of the organization for which the author works. Commercial use of media published by the FES is not permitted without the written consent of the FES. Publications by the FES may not be used for electioneering purposes. December 2025 © Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e. V. Further publications of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung can be found here: ↗ www.fes.de/publikationen FES Regional Office for International Cooperation Tracing illiberal talk – How far-right rhetoric erodes ­democracy before policies change 6