Hardly a week goes by without reports of elected officials—often depicted as ‘populists’—having used vitriolic language and viciously attacked their opponents. In a context of ‘restyling of politics’, the style of political actors is presented as increasingly emotional and confrontational. 

Some scholars have argued that these styles directly challenge the democratic functioning of our modern societies. Yet, in the absence of longitudinal studies, such claims remain trivial intuitions and anecdotes that are as old as politics. Do the styles of modern politicians constitute new trends or reflect old habits? What are the factors constraining or favouring certain styles? 

Against a form of nostalgia for ‘good old times’, this project critically challenges the idea that emotive and confrontational styles are necessarily threats for our contemporary democracies. The central claim of this project is that not all hostility is equal. Conflicts are the democracy’s lifeblood allowing—and even requiring—heated disagreements, including sometimes uncivil and nasty interactions between political adversaries. By contrast, styles founded upon violence and intolerance must be considered as incompatible with the functioning of our pluralistic democracies: such styles transform political adversaries into enemies to be destroyed.