From Haiti’s Maître Conte to Populist Leaders: The Art of Crafting Political Narratives
In a world driven by stories, the art of captivating an audience is not confined to ancient traditions—it’s alive in today’s politics. As I explored Diane Wolkstein's insights into Haitian storytellers, I couldn’t help but reflect on the striking similarities between them and modern populist leaders, who craft compelling narratives to mobilize followers. With the rise of social media and the decline of traditional journalism, the story of who controls the narrative has become more urgent than ever, impacting not only elections but the very foundation of democratic institutions.
We live in a world full of stories. Children eagerly listen to their parents as they share a new bedtime tale. At work, we overhear gossip about a new colleague, and in the evening, we head to the cinema to follow the journey of a main character’s life. Recently, I had an opportunity to read a wonderful book by Diane Wolkstein on the customs of the Haitian people. In their culture, there are professional storytellers—maître conte. They are highly respected in the villages, and listening to their stories is considered a special event. The skill of a storyteller is judged by how successfully they draw their audience into the narrative.
As a political science student, I began to reflect on how this concept plays out in Western society, particularly in politics. A politician’s success, too, hinges on how well they engage their audience. The better the story, the more people are mobilized during elections. The question is, who is telling the story? Traditionally, this role was filled by journalists. However, in her review of Eric Louw’s The Media and Political Process, Estonian journalist Vilja Kiisler paints a grim picture for media professionals. Major media companies are experiencing a financial downturn, while budgets for political communication continue to expand. With the rise of mass communication, politicians no longer need to court the attention of journalists. Today, journalists often learn of the news through politicians' posts on social media. A clear example of this is President Trump’s posts on Truth Social, which regularly make headlines. With the growth of social media usage, it’s possible to bypass traditional media altogether. This tactic of avoiding media interviews is often adopted by populist leaders, whose support is alarmingly growing on the political stage.
The word "populist" comes from the Latin word populus—the people. This political movement does not belong to either the right or left ideology, positioning itself instead in direct opposition to the country's current politics. What unites populists is their claim to represent ‘the people’. They view the ruling elites as a deep state, the media as their accomplices, and deny the legitimacy of the courts and other democratic institutions. Beneath the noble mission of protecting the people from corrupt elites often lie selfish motives. Populists frequently become embroiled in scandals related to legal violations and immoral behavior, choosing policies that bring small benefits in the present at the cost of large losses in the long term. The presence of such politicians in power is extremely dangerous, as it provides their followers with a reason to act the same way. (Jakobson, 2024)
January 6th was a shocking day for the whole world when Trump supporters attacked the Capitol, believing that the presidential election results were falsified. Distrust in authorities and aggressive attacks on people with different political beliefs are driven by polarization. Affective polarization is the process of dividing society into two opposing camps, where our political beliefs become part of our identity. Polarization forces people into categories and sets them against each other in an aggressive manner. Out of fear that ‘bad people’ will come to power, people go to vote; out of fear for their children, loved ones, beliefs, and freedoms, people attack others, both physically and mentally. Populist politicians fuel up those fears, which increases polarization. It seems to me that they could compete with Haiti’s maître conte in terms of captivating people with their narratives. In her article Populist Blame Games, Mari-Liis Jakobson examines various blame strategies employed by populist politicians. To illustrate these tactics, let’s have a look at the Porto Franco scandal—a peculiar series of events that led to the collapse of the government.
The Conservative People's Party of Estonia (EKRE) is Estonia’s populist radical-right party, which entered the political arena in 2012 through the merger of a social conservative People’s Party and a small non electoral radical-right Estonian Nationalist Movement. Its support grew significantly, fueled by opposition to a gender-neutral partnership law and later by the European migration crisis. The party is led by a charismatic father–son duo Mart and Martin Helme. The party eventually joined a governing coalition with the Centre Party and Isamaa. The Centre Party, once isolated due to its ties with Russia, repositioned under Jüri Ratas in 2016. Isamaa, once neoconservative party, has shifted towards nationalism and social conservatism, drawing comparisons to EKRE. (Jakobson, 2024)
In 2021, the prosecution charged Kersti Kracht (EKRE), an advisor to Finance Minister Martin Helme with bribery. According to the accusation, she promised to influence the minister to grant the Porto Franco company a €39.4 million loan from funds intended to help businesses during the COVID pandemic—KredEx. Kersti Kracht owned 14 companies, most of which were incurring losses. Many of the properties owned by her companies were mortgaged. To deal with her debts, Kracht tried to sell a house registered under one of her companies for €595,000, but was unsuccessful. Porto Franco owner Hillar Teder offered help from an acquaintance, who would temporarily “buy” the house, allowing the politician to continue living in it, and later buy it back. In other words, to receive an interest-free loan to cover her debts.
When the case became public, Kracht used the populist strategy of the blame game.
The First Rule: Deny, Deny, Deny
When journalists from traditional media outlet Delfi asked for a comment from the advisor, she turned to the finance minister:
"Let’ s just ignore the question, right? Don’t answer anything, okay?"
The Second Rule: Question Democratic Institutions
According to Kracht, the court deprived her of the ability to pay off her debts and was waiting for her to take a bribe. Kracht begins to talk about her businesses, which incurred losses because her clients could not access the properties owned by her company. By that time, the company was insolvent, so, according to an interim court decision, the mortgage right had been used unfairly. In the same interview, Kracht emphasizes the incompetence and bias of state experts when assessing the company’s losses:
"Various expert assessments are taking place, and despite the fact that they were even influenced by these state experts… And by the way, I must say: the level of state experts assessing economic activity or any specific companies is terrible. (…) For example, there are people who have a PhD in another field, like social sciences. They really try, but they don’t understand at all… Let’ s put it this way, they are discounting company prices. They look at the ceiling and say, ‘Okay, let’ s deduct 40% from the revenue because the company was small and maybe someone didn’t want it on the market at the moment.’”
The Third Rule: The Elite vs. The People
When the case regarding the loss reached the district court, the interim court decision was annulled. The politician filed an appeal against this decision. In the interview given to right-wing news channel Uued Uudised, Kracht portrays herself as a victim, claiming that the prosecution deliberately slowed down the process of reviewing the appeal so that she would take a bribe.
The Fourth Rule: Undermine Traditional Media
When Kracht was released from custody, the news portal ERR (Estonian Public
Broadcasting) attempted to interview her. Kracht responded aggressively, undermining their
credibility:
"What are you talking about? Have you lost your mind? Do you think I’m an idiot? I’ve said everywhere that I don’t admit guilt or even suspicion. They have no grounds. Then you ask me if I plead guilty. Huko Aaspõllu (author’s note: ERR journalist), do you think I’m a complete idiot? Are you calling from ERR? Is this the ERR? Is ERR asking such a question? What are you doing… are you a comedy show?"
The Fifth Rule: Blame the Deep State for Everything
Later, Kersti Kracht, along with her lawyer Oliver Nääs, held a press conference in which she claimed that her criminal case was a commissioned job to bring down the coalition. This rhetoric points to the opacity of the Estonian state apparatus. Kracht tried to frame herself as a victim of the system.
"The prosecutor’s office made a big noise to break up the coalition. It was a commissioned job. I don’t know who ordered it."
She refrained from naming the alleged "clients," justifying it by the risk to her life: "Do you want me to leave this building and get a bullet in my head ten minutes later? I have children and grandchildren. There are undercurrents in Estonian society. Who are the real influencers here, who close criminal cases, who initiate criminal cases? I won’t name any names."
I admit that Kracht’s story could seem quite convincing if not subjected to critical analysis. Unlike mainstream parties, populists often deny legitimacy of the democratic institutions helping to ensure that power is not concentrated in the hands of one group of people. Ironically, populists often accuse these institutions of doing what they themselves are trying to achieve. After all, if there are no media, courts, or executive power to critique or limit the decisions of the legislature, how can we be sure that these decisions are truly made for the benefit of the people? Who will be the final authority? Who will explain to people that a politician has done something wrong? Who will protect people from populists if they decide to abuse power?
This rhetoric reminds me of the famous quote by Louis XIV , “I am the state.” Since authoritarian regimes no longer last long, the phrase has changed its formulation and turned into “I am the people,” unfortunately, only superficially implying the participation of the latter.
Sources:
Jakobson (2024). Populist Blame Games. In: The Politics and Governance of Blame. Edited by: Matthew Flinders, Gergana Dimova, Markus Hinterleitner, R. A. W. Rhodes, and R. Kent Weaver, Oxford University Press.
Vilja Kiisler. (2024). Ajakirjanik, poliitiku vähem vend? Sirp. https://www.sirp.ee/s1-artiklid/c9-sotsiaalia/ajakirjanik-poliitiku-vahem-vend/
Wolkstein, D. (1978). The Magic Orange Tree and Other Haitian Folktales. Alfred A. Knopf.
Author is a journalist.
This article was published as part of PERSPECTIVES – the new label for independent, constructive and multi-perspective journalism. PERSPECTIVES is co-financed by the EU and implemented by a transnational editorial network from Central-Eastern Europe under the leadership of Goethe-Institut. Find out more about PERSPECTIVES: goethe.de/perspectives_eu.
Co-funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are, however, those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible.
