Fidias Panayiotou: Hiding Populism Behind his Finger?

By: Kleopatra Efstathiou

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4nnrwr72dqo 

An unlikely candidate:

Where I come from, there is a young man with a history of dodging public transportation fares around the world, hiding in toilets and luggage compartments to avoid buying train tickets, becoming a spectacle in the streets of downtown Nicosia, camping outside SpaceX until Elon Musk hugged him, and winning a Lamborghini in a MrBeast challenge.

He also happens to be a Member of the European Parliament (MEP).

In June 2024, elections for MEPs were held and Europe was holding its breath, or at least I was holding mine: international conflicts, the climate change crisis, and the rise of far-right populism, all called for a strong and decisive Parliament, ready to take on these challenges. Fidias Panayiotou’s campaign had been going on for a few months, but quite frankly, I never spared him more than two minutes of my attention. I always remembered him as the TikToker that entertained me during the Covid lockdown days - a jokester that no one really took seriously, until more than 71,000 Cypriots did.

The days leading up to the election were filled with watching political analyses, the final candidate debates, and outcome predictions. Mr Panayiotou showed up to every single debate in a t-shirt and shorts, speaking in the Cypriot dialect, and admitting that he had no knowledge of European Union politics whatsoever; he threw around the buzzwords, ‘youth’, ‘education’ and ‘artificial intelligence’ in almost every other sentence, and deflected when asked about his actual stances were on any vaguely political issues s. He called for ‘change’ but never clarified what kind of change, or even what specifically needed to be changed. Having studied politics at university level, the word ‘populism’ was already on my lips – but of course, no one likes political jargon. 

On 9 June 2024, the day of the election, some clouds had begun to form in my head. Over the past weeks I had been talking to friends and family about the election, fulfilling my role as the politically-informed friend or cousin, and an alarming number of them had casually mentioned that Fidias did not sound like such a bad idea. My social media platforms were buzzing with young adults, as well as a considerable number of middle-aged people actively supporting him. An annoying ‘What if?’ was spinning around in my head, but I pushed it away. The public knows that a joke has its limits.

Until it doesn’t.

I cannot put into words my shock while watching the results of the election coming out. After a sufficient number of votes had been counted, and the result was effectively decided, I was still staring at my television in disbelief. Along with the far-right party gaining one seat, and the left-wing party losing one, Mr Panayiotou had just been elected as one of the six MEPs of Cyprus, and he immediately organised a large celebration in the centre of the island’s capital.

Political analysts were as speechless as I was. His election immediately became known as the ‘Fidias phenomenon’ in Cypriot media, with mainstream parties trying to understand where they went wrong – but it was already too late. People were rejoicing – they perceived this as a victory for the people, a loss for corrupt politicians and the elites. I kept repeating the word ‘populism’, but still, I was dismissed for over-analysing the situation.

In October 2024, Mr Panayiotou organised a demonstration of students in downtown Nicosia, protesting against the ban on mobile phones established in Cypriot high schools a few days prior. While some wondered why an MEP would get involved with this issue, high school students were loud in their support for his disapproval of the measure – even though hardly any of them attended the demonstration. Nevertheless, when Mr Panayiotou was invited on national news to talk about the demonstrations, his responses were eye-opening. Presented with considerable evidence of how banning mobile phones in schools was actually beneficial to students, he deflected by arguing that he had his own sources arguing the opposite, without providing adequate information for these sources Anyone educated on the dangers of confirmation bias will naturally cringe at this approach. Mr Panayiotou used the Greek word for ‘referendum’ in describing a TikTok poll where he asked his audience whether they agree with the measure. Again, anyone with the slightest knowledge of politics and what referendums actually are will cringe at the zoomer-ification of the term, as an online poll clearly lacks the sophistication, time, and effort involved in the process of a referendum, nor does it capture the importance of issues referendums are usually used for. Besides, this constitutes dangerous misinformation for individuals that do not know what referendums are, and may, through Mr Panayiotous' use of the term, associate them with online polls. During the interview, which consisted of the interviewer politely suggesting what bureaucratic policy approaches Mr Panayiotou could take to address the issue, and Panayiotou almost shouting in frustration, an audience member commented that what Mr Panayiotou was doing was populism.

While I am not convinced that Cypriots fully understand, or are even broadly aware of, what populism is, some are beginning to observe the negative effects that accompany voting for someone out of spite for the mainstream political elite, or voting for fun, and for someone with no political agenda. Cyprus voted for Panayiotoun, an individual who admitted to using ChatGPT in the European Parliament, and who openly insulted the families of Cypriot missing persons of the 1974 war. The naïveté of youth is undeniable; but naïve mistakes are harder to forgive when they are committed by an MEP, a representative of the people, who must, owing to his position, be knowledgeable about and display concern for the people he represents, and the issues they care about. Apart from that, Panayiotou is supposed to be upholding a positive image of Cyprus and its people within the European Union, at which, judging from his behaviour and his social media presence, he is not succeeding.

Photo by: Kleopatra Efstathiou

Other Cypriot influencers have already declared an interest in running in the next parliamentary elections, while influencers from Spain, France, and the Czech Republic also have made their way into the European Parliament alongside Fidias. While a political analysis of populism is usually mobilised in assessing cases of far-right extremism, in light of this new era of untraditional politics replacing or displacing the foci of traditional political theory and analysis, it is relevant to consider this novel trend as populism, and ponder on  the effects of sustaining this trend on both national and intergovernmental or international politics.

The populist threat revisited:

Defined simply, populism is a political approach whereby ‘the people’ are emphasised in opposition to ‘the elite’. It focuses and preys on the dissatisfaction of people with established political authorities, specifically when ‘the people’ feel that their needs and views are not given weight by ‘the elites’, the establishment, or any other political authority perceived as ‘socially superior’ to them. Populism has both right-wing and left-wing dimensions which differ on their goals and agendas. Nowadays, populism in Europe tends to be of the right-wing kind, aligning with Euroscepticism, and focuses on issues like migration and economic inequality – issues that populist leaders have not struggled to blame on EU membership. Within the EU, waves of populism have been observed in Italy and France, with populist leaders attaining power in Poland and Hungary, and Brexit simultaneously representing a victory for populism in the UK. Regardless of one’s opinion on populism, a specific political agenda underlines populist movements and dominates the rhetoric of such leaders. My question is, how do we approach populism of a different kind? How do we approach a populist that not only lacks a political agenda, but also lacks any kind of knowledge and awareness that would lead him to formulate such an agenda?

I think Mr Panayiotou’s populism is far more dangerous than typical far-right populism, which has long been analysed as the biggest threat to the EU. Mr Panayiotou’s lack of a political position on any serious issue facing the Cypriot public has thus far prevented him from making any serious enemies. Ordinary people saw him as a fun young man, energetic, and ready to take action. Politicians saw him as just another ambitious jokester that they paternalistically tried to take under their wing. More privileged circles with an extensive background in politics, law, and economics, saw him as just another trend that will pass. No one saw him as a political enemy. Nothing he said threatened anyone’s rights, their economic prospects, or touched on sensitive or concerning issues. It is easy to hate someone that wants your rights stripped away. It is hard to hate someone that just smiles and nods.

Mr Panayiotou made great efforts to help people in the process of voting, and educate them through his social media channels. He posted videos on his social media platforms explaining how the EU works, explanatory short clips on how to vote correctly, and encouraged impressive numbers of young people to register on the electoral roll prior to the election. I acknowledge that these are noble efforts and yielded good results. It seems to me, however, that Mr Panayiotou was simply playing on his charm; he made great efforts to seem approachable, distance himself from mainstream political parties while calling them out for corruption, and aligning himself with ‘the people’ – as most powerfully shown through his insistence of using the Cypriot dialect when interacting both with the general public as well as with politicians and interviewers, instead of using political jargon and diplomatic language. To an ordinary citizen, he is just a genuine, likeable individual, a nice break from all the disappointing politicians of our country. However, the alarm bells of populism were already ringing in the minds of politically educated individuals from the moment his campaign was announced. 

Mr Panayiotou was able to cleverly utilise his lack of knowledge to his advantage. When questioned on any major issue in Cyprus, ranging from the Cyprus problem to the housing crisis, his response was always two pronged: he would promise to learn, and he would immediately deflect by blaming mainstream parties and politicians for having been unable to address several issues effectively. He would remind the public of his rise to fame and wealth, repeating that his approach would be different, and implying that if he was so successful in every other area of his life, he would also be successful here. One can deconstruct several elements of Mr Panayiotou’s rhetoric and political presence and therefore observe his similarities to other famous, or rather, infamous, populist leaders. To me, the constant bragging about his achievements and the implication of his superiority screams of Donald Trump’s braggaddocio, minus his political agenda and his certain level of knowledge. Taking this even further, it is hard for Adolph Hitler not to come to one’s mind when considering the similarities in the techniques of scapegoating ,the use of simple language, and a mobilisation of charisma – yet again, minus the political agenda and knowledge. While Mr Panayiotou must not be equated with these leaders, the similarities in their populist approaches are undoubtable. What is even scarier is that, judging from his long-noted lack of political knowledge, he does not seem to act intentionally.

Academia and the media have become adept at  analysing and critiquing far-right populism – but how do we address the kind of populism presented by Mr Panayiotou? There may not be a definitive answer to this question. However, at least part of the answer lies in education. Proper political or civil education would equip adolescents and young adults with the ability to recognise populism, and even if they cannot name it, to recognise incompetence, lack of knowledge, and the importance of having a political agenda and political views. Young people would, through proper education, improve their critical thinking and analytical skills, so that they can make informed choices when voting for a particular individual, party, or political agenda. No matter their stance on specific issues, they would be able to forecast the long-term impact of sets of choices, and understand how they may impact their own lives, as well as those of others. I myself was once trapped in the right/wrong mentality of politics, but I have grown to realise that what is actually important is just having a stance – no matter what that stance is and whether it is politically correct – and being able to support it. If we, as young people, have no stance on anything, and our elected officials lack one too, then we will become as the blind leading the blind – as Mr Panayiotou leads Cyprus as an MEP.