European countries are reacting differently to the rise of the right – from isolation to cooperation. What can Germany learn from this in the fight against the AfD? And what do the experts say?
How should we deal with populist or extreme right-wing parties? This question is being asked in many European countries. In principle, there are two options: accept them or fight them.
NETHERLANDS: THE “DEFENSE WALL” IS IMPORTANT, BUT NOT ENOUGH
Why he suffered such a defeat, Geert Wilders was asked immediately after the first results of the Dutch parliamentary elections were published. The right-wing populist analyzed the situation in a surprisingly frank and open manner: “I think a lot of people thought: Well, if all the parties say they won’t cooperate with him, then maybe it’s better to give our vote to the party that has a chance of governing.” In other words: this time the so-called “protective wall” stood – all the main parties ruled out cooperation with Wilders. Two years ago, it was different, and Wilders achieved spectacular electoral success.
But it also showed the following: although in the few months that his party was in power, according to the general opinion, he achieved nothing, this hardly harmed him. He lost a few seats, but he remains one of the strongest political forces. “The assumption that the right wing will lose in the long run because it is seen that it is not succeeding in government is a fundamental misunderstanding,” says the German-British historian Prof. Frank Trentmann from London, author of the recently published book “The Blocked Republic”. “Behind the right-wing populism lies a core of voters who do not take other parties into account at all.”
AUSTRIA: THE MAGIC THAT DIDN’T WORK
The Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) under the leadership of Jörg Haider in the 1980s was considered the first right-wing populist party in Europe. The traditionally conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) initially pursued a policy of distancing itself, but in the 2000s it entered into a coalition with the FPÖ for the first time. The hope was that voters would see that the FPÖ could not perform miracles either. But did it work?
It is true that the FPÖ has occasionally lost support, for example after the “Ibiza” corruption scandal, but this has never lasted long. “I see this as the main question: does involving the right wing work as a way to weaken and appease them,” says Sebastian Enskat, author of a recently published study by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation on the treatment of right-wing populist parties in Europe.
He points out: “It must be said: there is this disappointment effect – but it is short-lived. If you look at how big the ‘Ibiza’ scandal was, it is surprising how quickly the FPÖ recovered and now stands at over 35 percent in the polls.”
GREAT BRITAIN: THE OPPOSITE EFFECT
In the UK, right-wing populist Nigel Farage’s party is currently leading in all the polls. Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer is responding by partially adopting the right-wing rhetoric. He has announced that he will “end the open borders experiment” and close the “dishonest chapter” of illegal immigration.
But this has not helped Labour in the polls so far, and Trentmann does not believe this will change: “We have very clear statistics that show that since the late 1980s, conservative and centrist parties in European countries have lost votes from the right wing when they have moved closer to the right. Trying to take away the right’s ground on migration through stricter policies has had the opposite effect.”
GREECE AND SPAIN: IGNORED THE RIGHT
The most successful examples of right-wing positions that Enskat found in his study are Greece and Spain. “In my opinion, constantly dealing with right-wing populists is counterproductive – and it’s different in those countries. There, the center-right parties are more concerned with themselves – with quality management, if they are in power, but also with their political program and innovations.” The parties there generally go their own way and, figuratively speaking, leave the rightists aside. On the other hand, “the current German debate on the appearance of cities” has put the AfD in the spotlight for weeks, Enskat warns.
WHAT ABOUT GERMANY?
CDU Chairman Friedrich Merz maintains a “protective wall” in Germany and refuses any cooperation with the Alternative for Germany (AfD). At the same time, he is trying to deal with topics that are of interest to AfD voters. But this has not so far led to a decline in the AfD’s popularity in the polls, on the contrary.
One explanation could be that a large proportion of AfD voters can no longer return to centrist parties. Another survey by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation found that the core of regular AfD voters now makes up the largest share of any party – 70 percent of AfD voters say they can no longer imagine voting for another party.
“These figures are significantly lower for all other parties,” says Enskat. “The ‘protest voter’ factor has been decreasing more and more over time.” According to this study, the potential of the Union parties (CDU/CSU) among AfD voters is only around ten percent.
EXPERTS: PROBLEMS MUST BE SOLVED OPENLY AND HONESTY
According to historian Trentmann, the main question is how the centrist parties can regain control over major social problems. “Let’s take the example of the housing shortage. Here, the right-wing parties say: ‘It’s because of too many immigrants.'” This statement is often taken up by other parties, Trentmann points out.
His analysis: “This is completely wrong. Instead, the traditional popular parties should say: No, this is different. We made big mistakes in the past and that is why so few apartments were built. In addition, there are more and more single-person households. These problems will not disappear if we carry out more evictions.” Trentmann is convinced that such open and honest communication would be the most promising way to retain their voters and win over other, undecided and abstaining voters before they go to the right-wing camp. (DW)
