On December 17, 2013, Santiago Abascal established the Spanish political organization Vox, which the New York Times describes as “nationalism at its finest” (Source). The organization is notorious for its anti-immigration and anti-Muslim platform, as well as its conservative stance regarding LGBTQ+ rights, gender equality, and abortion (Source). For instance, Vox has denounced same-sex marriage and sexual identity diversity curriculums in schools (Source), considers gender-based violence an “ideological concept [they] don’t recognize” (Source), intends to repeal legal protections for transgender Spaniards, and aims to abolish current abortion protections (Source). In terms of immigration and minorities, in 2023, Vox members of the Spanish congress proposed to suspend all Spanish nationality processes exclusively for immigrants from Islamic cultures. Not only is this blatant xenophobia written into proposed legislation, but it is also a violation of the Spanish Constitution’s protection of the right to religious freedom (Source). Vox takes conservatism to the “ultraderecha” (or ultra-right), especially in a nation that has otherwise effectively avoided the rise of far-right politics since Francisco Franco’s leadership in the 1970s (Source). 

Some scholars, such as Carles Ferreira, consider Vox’s rhetoric best fitted to a nationalist paradigm (Source), however, Vox can arguably be defined as a form of right-wing populism. Firstly, populism is defined by Mudde as “…a thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic camps, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite,’ and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté gé né rale (general will) of the people” (Mudde 2004, 543). In the same vein, Müller’s assessment of populism determines that, “In addition to being antielitist, populists are antipluralist”, but expounds on Mudde’s definition by analyzing the morality of populist motives with a more critical eye (Müller 56-57). Where Mudde and Müller coalesce is that populism positions the people against the elite and promotes homogeneity or anti-pluralism. Thus, populists must be antielitist and antipluralist, themes found in Vox’s rhetoric and actions. 

For instance, Vox’s “Founding Manifesto” states the following, “En el terreno de la calidad de nuestra democracia, el Estado constitucional ha degenerado en Estado de partidos…Un grupo reducido, cooptado y oligárquico de dirigentes de partido maneja a su arbitrio el Estado. / In terms of the quality of our democracy, the constitutional state has degenerated into a party state… A reduced, co-opted and oligarchic group of party leaders manage the State at their discretion” (Source). While Vox does not explicitly label Spanish leaders as “elites” in this Manifesto, referring to elected officials as oligarchs suggests they are business elites with excessive government power. 

Additionally, this Manifesto proclaims that, “Los escándalos que se vienen acumulando y que afectan a los principales partidos políticos del país, involucrados en graves casos de corrupción, han sumido a la sociedad española en el desaliento y han suscitado su indignación. / The accumulating scandals affecting the country’s main political parties, involved in serious cases of corruption, have plunged Spanish society into despondency and have aroused its indignation” (Source). Not only does Vox’s “Founding Manifesto” deem incumbent Spanish politicians as oligarchs, or business elites with excessive power, but it also claims that these oligarchs do not act in the best interest of the people and have gone as far as to “plunge Spanish society into despondency”. In turn, Vox’s “Founding Manifesto” effectively establishes incumbent politicians and their respective political party affiliations as the “corrupt elite” opposition to their populist struggle. 

Furthermore, Vox’s Manifesto states that, “El sistema electoral ha de reflejar fielmente el pluralismo social y favorecer a la vez la gobernabilidad del país. / The electoral system must faithfully reflect social pluralism and at the same time favor the governability of the country” (Source), thus indicating that the group’s ideology is pluralist and resultantly not populist. At face value, this rhetoric would discredit Vox from being considered a populist party. However, Vox’s actions speak louder than their words and ultimately indicate anti-pluralist practices. To determine what anti-pluralist politics consist of, the V-Dem Institute proposes that “demonizing rhetoric, the encouragement of political violence, disrespect for minority rights, and lacking commitment to the democratic process” are all traits of an anti-pluralist political party (Source). 

In terms of demonizing rhetoric and encouraging political violence, the Vox leader, Santiago Abascal, stated the following about incumbent Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, “He can trample laws, he can do anything, he can put national unity in jeopardy. There will come a time when the people will want to see him strung up by his feet” (Source). This allusion to Mussolini’s fate in 1945 is a clear call to political violence against Sánchez and a poorly drawn comparison at that. Furthermore, this comparison to Mussolini is merely one example of how Vox demonizes Spain’s politicians to further their anti-pluralist and populist agenda. 

In addition, as previously cited, Vox intends to infringe upon Muslim, LGBTQ+, and women’s rights all of whom are marginalized subsets of Spanish society. Particularly, the aforementioned anti-Muslim, anti-immigration measures proposed serve as glaring examples of Vox’s disrespect for minority rights. To this point, demonizing rhetoric is also regularly directed at these minority groups. For example, Vox’s representatives in Congress directed blame towards Muslim immigrants, who they labeled as “savages”, for, “attempting to rape women, but, as the perpetrators are foreigners, their crimes are conveniently silenced by feminism” (Source). Such unfounded and demonizing claims are wielded by Vox and deployed against political actors and minorities to achieve their political goals. This further indicates anti-pluralism under V-Dem’s proposed traits. 

In addition, Vox intends to “eliminate the political parties representing the nationalities within the Autonomous Communities, such as EAJ/PNV and EH Bildu in the Basque Country. However, those two goals are currently incompatible with the Spanish Constitution and would require a constitutional amendment” (Source). Although such goals that are incompatible with the Spanish Constitution are not in direct and immediate violation of the nation’s democratic process, they indicate a lack of commitment to Spain’s democratic institutions which further propels Vox’s intentions/actions towards anti-pluralism. 
Given this context, Vox is arguably anti-elitist and anti-pluralist which positions it as a populist right-wing party. This is not to say that this “ultraderecha” movement does not coexist within nationalist frameworks as well. Rather, Daphne Halikiopoulou argues, “It is possible to be both populist and nationalist and indeed a number of parties that we term ‘right-wing populist’ are” (Source). With this in mind, the assertion made by Carles Ferreira that nationalism is a more apt descriptor than populism for Vox’s right-wing ideology is limiting and worth expounding upon for the sake of understanding populism’s role in global trends of democratic erosion. Questions that beg to be asked after such analysis are as follows: With Vox as an ideological example, to what extent and in what direction might populism be in relationship with democratic erosion? How does this translate to other populist movements throughout the world today? Do we see distinctions between leftist populist movements and their contribution to democratic erosion? These lingering questions leave much room for important related discourse.