Digital Populism in Developing Democracies: How Social Media Shapes Political Polarization in Mongolia

Mongolia’s digital transformation over the past decade has profoundly altered its democratic landscape. With internet penetration reaching approximately 83 percent by early 2025 and nearly three-quarters of citizens active on social media, digital platforms have become the primary arena for political communication (DataReportal 2025). This transformation, while expanding access to information and civic participation, has also given rise to a powerful new force known as digital populism. Defined as the strategic use of online platforms by political actors to mobilize “the people” against perceived elites, digital populism bypasses traditional institutions and fosters an environment of emotional and polarized discourse (Mudde & Kaltwasser 2017). In Mongolia’s young democracy, this phenomenon has intensified political polarization, undermined institutional trust, and blurred the boundary between governance and entertainment.

The ubiquity of social media has made it the central stage for Mongolian politics. Once reliant on broadcast media and party networks, politicians now connect directly with citizens through platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. By 2024, Facebook alone reached roughly 72 percent of Mongolia’s population, transforming it into the de facto national forum for news and debate (NapoleonCat 2024). Today, nearly every member of parliament and minister maintains an active online presence, posting daily updates, hosting live videos, and performing for audiences much like influencers. Politics has become performative, shaped by algorithms that reward outrage and visibility over policy substance. As Batdorj (2020) notes, Mongolian politicians increasingly adopt the language of authenticity and emotion, leveraging social media engagement metrics as a measure of political legitimacy. The result is an “influencer democracy,” where leaders compete for followers rather than citizens’ confidence.

The culmination of this trend came in May 2025, when Prime Minister Luvsannamsrain Oyun-Erdene resigned amid the so-called “Gucci Bag Scandal.” A photograph of a relative carrying a luxury handbag surfaced on Instagram and quickly went viral, igniting public outrage over government privilege and hypocrisy. Within hours, hashtags such as #GucciGovernment dominated Facebook feeds, fueling protests that eventually led to the Prime Minister’s resignation (CNN 2025; Time 2025). While the scandal revealed legitimate concerns about accountability, it also highlighted the volatility of Mongolia’s digital public sphere. Reports suggested that rival factions within the opposition quietly funded some protest groups, hoping to exploit digital outrage for political advantage. As one local journalist observed, “Mongolians now wait each week for the next populism episode.” This constant cycle of scandal, amplification, and protest may appear to reflect a vibrant democracy, but in reality, it undermines the development of a free and deliberative media ecosystem.

The structural conditions enabling digital populism are deeply rooted in Mongolia’s political economy. Despite consistent GDP growth, economic inequality remains entrenched. Mining rents and natural-resource revenues flow disproportionately to political elites, widening the gap between urban and rural citizens (The Diplomat 2025). Institutional weakness compounds the problem. Political parties are poorly institutionalized, electoral financing lacks transparency, and independent journalism struggles under concentrated ownership (Freedom House 2024). In this vacuum, social media serves as the primary outlet for grievance and mobilization. Yet, as Tufekci (2018) argues, the design of digital platforms themselves amplifies emotional and divisive content. Algorithms privilege engagement such as clicks, shares, and comments, thereby elevating sensationalism over nuance. In a small information ecosystem like Mongolia’s, one viral post can dominate national conversation, shaping public perception long before facts are verified. The interplay of weak institutions, concentrated wealth, and algorithmic bias creates an ideal environment for digital populism to thrive.

From a policy-making perspective, addressing this challenge demands a multidimensional approach that integrates regulation, civic education, and institutional renewal. First, Mongolia should enact a Digital Media Transparency Act to regulate online political advertising, algorithmic decision-making, and campaign financing. This framework, modeled on the European Union’s Digital Services Act (European Commission 2023), would require platforms to disclose funding sources for political ads, submit to independent audits, and make data on content amplification publicly available. By ensuring transparency without infringing on freedom of expression, such a law would realign accountability mechanisms within the digital ecosystem.

Second, fostering digital literacy is essential to counter misinformation and populist manipulation. More than half of Mongolia’s social media users are aged between 18 and 34 (NapoleonCat 2024), making youth-targeted education critical. A Digital Civic Literacy Program should be introduced across schools, universities, and community centers, teaching critical thinking, online ethics, and fact-checking. Drawing on UNESCO’s Media and Information Literacy framework, the program could train 50,000 young people annually by 2027, cultivating a generation resilient to demagoguery and digital manipulation. Empowered citizens are less likely to succumb to populist narratives that exploit fear and division.

Third, institutional renewal is vital to rebuild trust. Public broadcasting should be protected from political interference and funded to produce investigative journalism. A Civic Media Innovation Fund, supported by local telecoms, development partners, and NGOs, could provide grants to independent journalists, fact-checking organizations, and civic-tech start-ups. UNESCO’s (2025) involvement in Mongolia’s media-law reforms underscores the importance of strengthening such mediating institutions. By restoring credible sources of information, Mongolia can reclaim the deliberative space that social media populism has eroded.

Nevertheless, reform will face resistance. Populist leaders are likely to frame regulation as censorship, while elites benefiting from opacity will resist transparency. Digital-literacy campaigns demand long-term investment, inter-ministerial coordination, and cultural adaptation. Guo (2025) observes that the greatest obstacle to rebuilding media trust often lies in elite resistance rather than public apathy. Policymakers can mitigate this by starting with incremental steps such as voluntary transparency charters with major platforms, local pilot programs, and community-driven monitoring systems that demonstrate immediate benefits.

The Mongolian experience exemplifies a broader dilemma faced by developing democracies: the mismatch between the speed of technological change and the slower evolution of governance institutions. When digital participation outpaces institutional adaptation, populism fills the void. As Andrews, Pritchett, and Woolcock (2017) describe, effective reform must address both “big P” and “small p” politics: formal laws and informal power dynamics. Combating digital populism requires legal frameworks that enforce accountability while simultaneously nurturing cultural norms that value truth, empathy, and evidence-based debate. Establishing multi-stakeholder digital-governance councils that include journalists, educators, and civic leaders could institutionalize these norms and foster social consensus around responsible digital discourse.

Ultimately, Mongolia’s struggle with digital populism illustrates the paradox of digital democracy. The very technologies that empower citizens can also undermine the institutions that protect them. The spectacle of politicians acting as influencers, livestreaming policy decisions, broadcasting personal routines, and cultivating celebrity personas has blurred the line between governance and performance. Without structural reforms, each scandal risks becoming a new “season” in the entertainment cycle of democracy. Yet this trajectory is reversible. Through coordinated policy action emphasizing transparency, civic empowerment, and institutional renewal, Mongolia can transform social media from a populist weapon into a democratic instrument. The challenge is not to silence the digital public but to cultivate a digital commons grounded in truth, accountability, and civic respect. The future of Mongolian democracy will depend not on algorithms but on the collective capacity of its people and leaders to use them responsibly.