S1 Griffin

Session 6
Dr. Caterina Froio (ESPOL, UCL)

caterina.froio@eui.eu
Right-wing extremism,
radicalism and populism in
Europe and the US
Todays’ menu
Session 5. United against the European Union?
Session 6. Why is the far right here? Explanatory models
Debate on:
• Eatwell, Roger. “Ten Theories of the Extreme Right”, in Peter H. Merkl

and Leonard Weinber (eds.), Right-Wing Extremism in the Twenty-First
Century. London: Frank Cass, 2003, 47- 73.
• Parker, C. S., & Barreto, M. A. (2014). “Who likes Tea?” in Change they
can't believe in: the Tea Party and reactionary politics in America.
Princeton University Press, Chapter 2, 66-101.
Why is the far right here? Explanatory models
Outline
a. Where do far right organizations come from?

b. Demand side explanations
c. External supply explanations
d. Internal supply explanations
e. Does immigration fuel support for the far right?
a) Where do far right
organizations come from?
Parties considered
AU= BZO & FPO
BE= VB
UK=FN+BNP
BU=ATTACK
CZ=Dawn
DK= Danish People’s Party
FI=True Finns
FR= Front National
GE= NPD +AFD
GR= ANEL + Golden Dawn
HU= FIDESZ+ JOBBIK
IT= AN +LN
NL= PVV
PO= Law and Justice
RO=Greater Romania Party
SL=Slovak National Party
SW= Swedish Democrats
SWI= Swiss People’s Party Source: European Election Database
a) Where do far right organizations come from?
• No single explanation to understand the rise, success and persistence of

far right parties id different countries (Eatwell 2015)
Intermittent success (rather than steady)

Far right parties exist in very different contexts and do not exist in
others
• One of the best cases illustrating «intermittence» is the Front

National…(that however is no exception in Europe! See Graph before)
a) Where do far right

organizations come
from?
Not increasing, but

intermittent success!
(FN 2017= 1st round 21.3%,
2nd round 33.9%)
a) Where do far right organizations come from?
Interplay of different explanations related to:
 Demand side factors (Eatwell 2003)

 attitudes of individuals
 External-Supply side factors (Eatwell 2003)

 national and/or supranational context (Political Opportunity
Structure)
 Internal- supply side factors (Mudde 2007)

 characteristics of the parties themselves
b) Demand side explanations
• The single-issue or ethnic backclash: major concerns about migration

and welfare (Arter 1992, Lubbers 2016; Arzheimer 2017) [later]
• The economic interest theory: relative deprivation and who fear
globalization (“Weimar scenario”)
• The protest theory/satisfaction with democracy: protest or anti-politics
would be the key factor (discontent with mainstream parties)
• The social breakdown theory: traditional social structures (class &
religion) are breaking down fueling interpersonal distrust (anomie)
• The (reverse) post-material thesis: the new postmaterialist agenda
Eatwell 2003: attitudes of

individuals
Attitudes associated with

individuals’ characteristics: European Value Survey
political, socio-demographic,
economic, etc.
(national pride, satisfaction

with democracy, age, sex,
political preferences,
profession, position on the
labour market, etc.)
Nonna Mayer 2015
Economic interest theory? Does it work?
The protest theory/

dissatisfaction with democracy
Graph: Satisfaction with democracy

(Eurobarometer 2016)
Why is the far right
here? Explanatory
models
The social breakdown theory

Religion
European Social Survey (2016)

The social breakdown theory

Anomie (distrust)
Why is the far right here?
Explanatory models
A postmaterialist agenda?
(data; Eurobarometer & Gallup)
c) External supply-side explanations
Eatwell 2003: national and/or supranational context
• External factors, not inherent to far right organizations (Carter 2005;

Givens 2005; Norris 2005; Van der Brug et al. 2005; Betz 2004)
Characteristics of the context where far right organizations operate
• Political opportunity structure (POS) (Rydgren 2005; Minkenberg 1998)

POS= “Consistent but not necessarily permanent or formal dimensions
of the political environment that provide incentives for people to
undertake collective action by affecting their expectations for success
and failure” (Tarrow 1994: 85)
c) External supply-side explanations
The concept of POS makes reference to three contexts:
1. The institutional context:

H: Different political systems provide different opportunities and limitations for far right parties to succeed in the
electoral arena (electoral system, number of parties, polarization) (Decker 2004)
2. The political context

H: The patterns of interactions between far right and other political parties (especially the established ones) as well
as dynamics between parties within the party system, contribute to create or foreclose opportunities for FRO. (Van
der Brug et al. 2005; Van Spanje 2008)
3. The cultural context

H. If the concept of political culture is hard to be used in empirical research, countries differ with respect to national
and political mores values, relationship with authoritarian legacies, etc.
4. The media (new and legacy ones)

H. Friends or foes (next session)
e) Internal supply-side explanations
(Mudde 2007): the characteristics of the parties themselves
• Focus on the AGENCY of far right organizations:
The capacity of an actor to act in a given environment

The way in which far right organizations interact with the context:
programs, leaders, etc.-
The success of the far right is said to be related to their strategies of redefinition
in terms of four main aspects:
Ideology
Leadership
Organization
Internationalization
• The goal is to acquire political legitimacy (dédiabolisation in common

language)
Idea that a party is socially acceptable
For the far right, legitimacy means demonstrating that the organization is a
legitimate part of the democratic national tradition
A. Ideology: moderation of their ideology (Taggart 1995; Ignazi 1992; Mudde 2007), and in
particular most far right organizations detach themselves from fascist and nazi ideology
to gain support
B. Leadership: Increased centralization of power and increased personalization of the

leadership is a tendency at work in most political parties + female leaders
(Papadopoulous 2005, Taggart 2000)
C. Organization: A well-developed party infrastructure is crucial to the success of all

political parties, and party organization is crucial to assure the persistence of these
political parties (Decker 2005)
D. Internationalization: (Schain 2002)

• Assistance and support from populist far right parties and movements to like-minded parties across the
borders
• One or more far right organization providing an example of success for all the others
• A successful party in a country A can make the far right discourse (issue attention in particular) more
acceptable in country B.
The popularity of the Front National (1984-2013).
Source: Froio and Grossman 2017

Source: Kantar-TNS.
BREAK 10 MIN
Why is the far right
here? Explanatory
models
e) Does immigration fuel

support for the far right?
e) Does immigration fuel support for the far right?
d) Does immigration fuel support for the far right?
Three possible explanations in the literature (Van Spanje 2011) :
1. The ‘’numbers’’ hypothesis: Far right performances and

immigration rates
2. The ‘’changing discourse’’ hypothesis: immigration and the

economy in a globalized word
3. The ‘’contagion’’ hypothesis: Far right’s and mainstream parties’

positions on immigration
Country % of the population S
Why is the far right here? Poland

Romania
1,6
1,8
Explanatory models Bulgaria

Slovakia
1,9
3,3
Czech Republic 4,1
Lithuania 4,5
d) Does immigration fuel support for the far Hungary 5,1
right? Finland 6
Portugal 8,4
Italy 9,7
The ‘number’ hypothesis: Malta
Denmark
10,6
11,2
Greece 11,3
Slovenia 11,7
 The success of Far right parties would be France 11,8
fueled by the increasing number of Netherlands 12,1
migrants Spain 12,7
Croatia 13,1
Latvia 13,1
Table: % of Foreign born population in EU Germany 13,3
countries United Kingdom 13,3
Estonia 14,7
Belgium 16,3
Ireland 16,9
Mixed evidence! Sweden 17
Austria 18,2
Cyprus 20,4
It’s not numbers, stupid! Luxembourg 45,2
Source Eurostat 2017 (migr_pop3ctb)
The ‘’changing discourse ‘’ hypothesis:
A more appealing discourse to portray immigration as a cultural and

economic ‘threat’ (independently on the actual numbers)
From racism as ‘hierarchy’ (only race) to racism as ‘incompatibility’

(culture and race)
Politicizing economic hardship (competition between natives and non)
and the supranationalization of politics

Immigration and the economy in a globalized world
Immigration as a cultural ‘threat’:
• A continuum of nativist arguments ranging from biological

racism to ethnocentrism, assuming that cultures are ‘static’
“We don’t want people that are different from us here. And it’s not only
a matter of being white or black. It’s a matter of protecting the
European civilization from disappearing. Everyone must be free to
preserve his culture, religion, and habits but in his own country”.
(M. 29, Northern League, Italy)
The ‘’changing discourse’’ hypothesis:
Immigration as an economic ‘threat’
• Increasing importance of the economy in the Far right , BUT:
- No coherent position on economic issues= little credibility

- No ‘Weimar Scenario’ = the eurocrisis did not breed extremism
• Capitalizing (only?) on nativist economic arguments?
“My party doesn’t fight only for a cut of one percent point of the VAT! We are patriots, engaged in a
civilizational struggle to defend our national identity. Defending our national identity and culture will
help our workers not to be exploited by rootless multinationals that find their best ally in the EU”.
(A. Front National, France, 38)
The ‘’changing discourse‘’ hypothesis:

• Globalization and EU integration: the drivers of cultural and

economic insecurity
• The European Union as ‘the Trojan horse of globalists’
• Nativist and economic concerns in an anti-globalization

rhetoric
• Targeting the ‘’losers of globalization’’: patriots vs

globalists
• A new global ‘’enemy’’: Muslims (see S4)

• Defending an imagined ‘Western Civilization’ or ‘Europe’
• Anti-Islam discourses: liberal vs illiberal values (women and gay
rights)
• Addressing broader constituencies (Mayer 2013)

-young women
-male homosexuals
-Jewish people
-deviated parts of the libertarian left: ultra-secularists
The ‘’contagion hypothesis’’:
Far right’s and mainstream parties’ positions on immigration
• RRPs’ discourse on immigration (combining economic, cultural and

securitarian concerns) influences the positions of mainstream parties
• Relatively successful in the ballots, more successful in radicalizing

mainstream values, especially on immigration
• Cases of ‘’absorption’’: United Kingdom and Spain

• 24 EU countries
• specific center right parties

sought to respond
with a ‘strategic emphasis’
on immigration
in order to win more voters
In sum…
No simple explanation:
Numbers have little explanatory power
A reframed anti-immigration discourse (culture, economy and
globalization)
Changing positions of mainstream parties on immigration issues
Debate
• Eatwell, Roger. “Ten Theories of the Extreme Right”, in Peter H. Merkl

and Leonard Weinber (eds.), Right-Wing Extremism in the Twenty-
First Century. London: Frank Cass, 2003, 47- 73.
• Parker, C. S., & Barreto, M. A. (2014). “Who likes Tea?” in Change they
can't believe in: the Tea Party and reactionary politics in America.
Princeton University Press, Chapter 2, 66-101.
Thank you for your attention
NB: All references are available in the ‘compulsory readings’ for Session 6

S1 Griffin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

S1 Griffin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Session 6

Dr. Caterina Froio (ESPOL, UCL)

• Eatwell, Roger. “Ten Theories of the Extreme Right”, in Peter H. Merkl

a. Where do far right organizations come from?

• No single explanation to understand the rise, success and persistence of

Intermittent success (rather than steady)

• One of the best cases illustrating «intermittence» is the Front

a) Where do far right

Not increasing, but

Interplay of different explanations related to:

 Demand side factors (Eatwell 2003)

 External-Supply side factors (Eatwell 2003)

 Internal- supply side factors (Mudde 2007)

• The single-issue or ethnic backclash: major concerns about migration

Eatwell 2003: attitudes of

Attitudes associated with

(national pride, satisfaction

The protest theory/

Graph: Satisfaction with democracy

b) Demand side explanations

The social breakdown theory

European Social Survey (2016)

b) Demand side explanations

The social breakdown theory

b) Demand side explanations

Eatwell 2003: national and/or supranational context

• External factors, not inherent to far right organizations (Carter 2005;

• Political opportunity structure (POS) (Rydgren 2005; Minkenberg 1998)

1. The institutional context:

2. The political context

3. The cultural context

4. The media (new and legacy ones)

(Mudde 2007): the characteristics of the parties themselves

• Focus on the AGENCY of far right organizations:

The capacity of an actor to act in a given environment

• The goal is to acquire political legitimacy (dédiabolisation in common

B. Leadership: Increased centralization of power and increased personalization of the

C. Organization: A well-developed party infrastructure is crucial to the success of all

D. Internationalization: (Schain 2002)

Source: Froio and Grossman 2017

e) Does immigration fuel

d) Does immigration fuel support for the far right?

Three possible explanations in the literature (Van Spanje 2011) :

1. The ‘’numbers’’ hypothesis: Far right performances and

2. The ‘’changing discourse’’ hypothesis: immigration and the

3. The ‘’contagion’’ hypothesis: Far right’s and mainstream parties’

Why is the far right here? Poland

Explanatory models Bulgaria

The ‘’changing discourse ‘’ hypothesis:

A more appealing discourse to portray immigration as a cultural and

From racism as ‘hierarchy’ (only race) to racism as ‘incompatibility’

The ‘’changing discourse ‘’ hypothesis:

Immigration as a cultural ‘threat’:

• A continuum of nativist arguments ranging from biological

• Increasing importance of the economy in the Far right , BUT:

- No coherent position on economic issues= little credibility

• Capitalizing (only?) on nativist economic arguments?

The ‘’changing discourse‘’ hypothesis:

• Globalization and EU integration: the drivers of cultural and

• The European Union as ‘the Trojan horse of globalists’

• Nativist and economic concerns in an anti-globalization

• Targeting the ‘’losers of globalization’’: patriots vs

• A new global ‘’enemy’’: Muslims (see S4)

• Addressing broader constituencies (Mayer 2013)