Evidence library

This paper explores how local civil society organisations respond to populist politics’ use of national nostalgia and the extent to which they replicate or resist its exclusionary discourses.

Setting out our theoretical framework by drawing on the literature on the relationship between populism and nostalgic nationalism as well as previous studies on how civil society encounters populism, this study introduces a typology of how civil society organisations respond to populist rhetoric, and distinguishes between victims, vehicles, replicators, and resistors.

A media analysis of 564 news articles was undertaken to examine instances of local polarisation in the UK which arose from national discourses of division around national identity, ‘race’, religion, and immigration. This was supplemented with semi-structured interviews with key representatives from civil society groups identified as pivotal case studies.

Key findings

1. National nostalgia is a powerful but divisive political force

Nostalgia for an imagined "better" national past can strengthen feelings of belonging and community, but it can also create an "us versus them" mentality that excludes minorities, immigrants, or those seen as outside the national community. This makes it a common tool in populist politics.

2. Civil society organisations respond to populist pressures in four main ways

The study develops a typology of responses:

• Victims: organisations targeted by populist criticism or political backlash.
• Vehicles: organisations whose activities are co-opted by political actors to support a populist agenda.
• Replicators: organisations that actively reproduce polarising or exclusionary narratives.
• Resistors: organisations that challenge or seek to subvert polarising narratives and encourage dialogue.

Importantly, organisations may occupy more than one category at the same time.

3. Efforts to create dialogue about difficult histories can trigger backlash

The case studies of the National Trust and Bristol's M Shed Museum show that attempts to promote more nuanced discussions about slavery, colonialism and Britain's past were designed as dialogic, inclusive interventions.

However, these organisations became targets of "culture war" conflicts. Critics perceived their activities as attacks on British heritage and identity, leading to media campaigns, organised opposition and political scrutiny. As a result, both organisations became victims of polarisation, despite seeking to reduce it.

4. Inclusive patriotism can still be interpreted as exclusionary

The study compares two organisations promoting inclusive national identity:

• One Britain One Nation (OBON)
• British Future

Although both sought to foster belonging and inclusion, they were received very differently.

OBON's emphasis on patriotism, British values and national pride drew on symbols associated with nostalgic visions of Britain. Critics therefore interpreted it as aligned with conservative nationalism and exclusionary politics, regardless of its stated inclusive aims.

British Future, by contrast, deliberately reinterpreted traditional national symbols and events to show that modern Britain is diverse and multicultural. It sought to use existing national narratives to support inclusion rather than exclusion.

5. Dialogue and inclusion do not protect organisations from political attack

One of the study's most important conclusions is that even carefully designed dialogue initiatives can become entangled in polarised political debates. Organisations that promote discussion, historical reflection or inclusive identities may still be portrayed as partisan actors and become targets of populist mobilisation.

Overall conclusion

This study demonstrates that the different ways of interacting with nostalgia around nationalism can cause civil society organisations to become victims, vehicles, replicators, or resistors of polarisation.

The authors conclude that civil society has the potential to resist exclusionary populism by encouraging dialogue, critical reflection and more inclusive understandings of national identity.

However, engaging with symbols of national history, heritage and patriotism is inherently risky. Efforts to use national nostalgia in inclusive ways can easily be misunderstood, co-opted or attacked, meaning organisations may simultaneously become victims, vehicles, replicators and resistors of polarisation.

Relevance for charities and civil society

For charities and civil society organisations, the study suggests that:

• work on history, identity, race and belonging is increasingly politicised;
• inclusive narratives of national identity can be valuable but require careful framing;
• dialogue and community engagement remain important tools for reducing polarisation;
• organisations should expect and plan for potential backlash when addressing contentious issues related to national identity.

[AI summary of paper and key findings]