27th Mar 2023


We won't stop the extreme right (if we continue like this)

Listen to article

There is widespread relief about the re-election of Emmanuel Macron as president of France. As with the 2020 US presidential election, this was another high-stake election that was, in fact, a referendum on democracy.

And, yes, the winner of the Slovenian elections last Sunday had also called the poll a referendum about democracy.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

  • If we do not change the approach, we will not stop extremism's rise. I am sceptical that we will. There are too many people who think they benefit from it

As welcome as it is when democratic forces win elections, this is not how democracy should function. Voters should have a choice between candidates or parties that accept the rules of the game. They should not feel the need to vote for somebody they don't like, to avoid the election of an extremist.

Instead of plebiscites on democracy, there should be democratic choice.

For a decade we have been watching the extreme, mostly from the political right, growing, or at least entrenching itself, and turning elections into democracy plebiscites. And it seems that nobody has found a convincing recipe to stop them.

Who is to blame? Leftists accuse 'neoliberalism', but things are not so easy. The electorate of extreme right-wing parties include many more voters than economic losers. And yet, the economy plays a role.

The right blames 'liberal elites" that have lost touch with 'ordinary people', especially on cultural issues. That's too easy as well. There is a reason that Le Pen turned her party to the economic left.

The truth is that these parties draw on many motivations and the mix of reasons differs from country to country. Simplistic explanations have not helped us understand what works against the rise of political extremism.

For most people 'populism' has become the key label and explanatory framework. Unfortunately, it is not fit for purpose and has contributed to democracy's weak responses to extremism.

Why? Because it obscures the line that should be the most important in a democracy. The one that divides parties that are against democracy from those that work within the rules of the game. The many remedies against 'populism' do not work, because the malady is not clearly described.

Many liberals rail against 'the right'. They make the line between the right and the extreme right invisible.

This lack of clarity is baked into many definitions of populism and much literature on "illiberal democracy". For example, the leading scholar Cas Mudde says that populists typically claim that they represent 'the people' while railing against an elite.

Now, pretending that only one party represents the people is an extremist, anti-democratic position. It rejects pluralism. It suggests that some voters are more relevant than others and that election results do not tell the real story.

In this vein, Hungary's Viktor Orbán once remarked: "It may be that our parties and our representatives are in opposition in the National Assembly, but we cannot be in opposition, because the homeland cannot be in opposition."

The other side of the definition — being against elites — is not problematic. Democracy is not an elite-protection system. Indeed, many leftist parties demand elite change and better representation of minorities. Emmanuel Macron's rise was premised on the idea of replacing traditional political parties.

'Me, or the Devil'

Unfortunately, the vague problem description is useful to all sides: parties on the left or liberal side of the spectrum can paint any conservative opinion as 'populist' or extremist.

In majoritarian elections, like the US presidential election, or the second round of the French presidential election, it helps candidates to be able to say: It's me or the devil.

Extremists can also be used to divide the right. Indeed, the Front National gained traction in the 1980s thanks to a Machiavellian move by then president Francois Mitterrand of the Socialist Party.

He changed the electoral system so that the Front National won seats in parliament and thus divided and weakened the political right.

Parties on the right also think they can benefit from the extremist upswing, even if they may not be extremist themselves. Think of how long it took for the European People's Party in the European Parliament to expel the Hungarian Fidesz party, because it wanted its votes.

Or consider how Valérie Pécresse, the candidate of the centre-right Republican Party, started musing about the "great replacement", a conspiracy myth about migration, spread by the extreme right (the only politician working on great replacements is Vladimir Putin, beloved by the extreme right. Five million Ukrainians have fled to the EU.)

It did not work for her. People voted for the originals: the racist Éric Zemmour and Marine Le Pen.

The media also like the vagueness of the 'populism' label. It sounds suitably negative for a party one does not like, but does not require the argumentative depth one would need to call a party anti-democratic or extremist.

It is mostly left to courts and other legal institutions to police the border between extremists and democratic forces.

Think of the European Court of Justice and its decisions about the rule of law in Hungary and Poland, or the German domestic security agency's analysis of the far-right party Alternative für Deutschland [Alternative for Germany].

Certainly the French courts would have become involved if Le Pen had become president and launched her planned attack on the constitution through plebiscite.

Leaving the policing of extremism to a few judges and legal experts is not good enough. Democracies will not master the extremist challenge without a critical mass of politicians, analysts, scholars and journalists being willing to distinguish between extremism and political positions they do not like.

Our societies lack resilience to political extremism, because we do not name the problem. If we do not change the approach, we will not stop extremism's rise.

I am sceptical that we will. There are too many people who think they benefit from it.

Author bio

Michael Meyer-Resende is the executive director of Democracy Reporting International, a non-partisan NGO in Berlin that supports political participation.


The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

Macron has delivered for his supporters

To his opponents, Emmanuel Macron is a "president of the rich" or a panderer to Islamophobes. If the polls are right, and he nevertheless wins reelection this month, they'll insist it was due to the weakness of his opponents

Far-right loners pose ever-bigger EU terror threat

Far-right loners radicalised online pose an ever-bigger terrorist threat in Europe in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, EU intelligence and police services have warned.

Biden's 'democracy summit' poses questions for EU identity

From the perspective of international relations, the EU is a rare bird indeed. Theoretically speaking it cannot even exist. The charter of the United Nations, which underlies the current system of global governance, distinguishes between states and organisations of states.

EU's new critical raw materials act could be a recipe for conflict

Solar panels, wind-turbines, electric vehicle batteries and other green technologies require minerals including aluminium, cobalt and lithium — which are mined in some of the most conflict-riven nations on earth, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, and Kazakhstan.


Okay, alright, AI might be useful after all

Large Language Models could give the powers trained data-journalists wield, to regular boring journalists like me — who don't know how to use Python. And that makes me tremendously excited, to be honest.

How much can we trust Russian opinion polls on the war?

The lack of Russian opposition to the Russo-Ukrainian War is puzzling. The war is going nowhere, Russian casualties are staggering, the economy is in trouble, and living standards are declining, and yet polls indicate that most Russians support the war.

Latest News

  1. Biden's 'democracy summit' poses questions for EU identity
  2. Finnish elections and Hungary's Nato vote in focus This WEEK
  3. EU's new critical raw materials act could be a recipe for conflict
  4. Okay, alright, AI might be useful after all
  5. Von der Leyen pledges to help return Ukrainian children
  6. EU leaders agree 1m artillery shells for Ukraine
  7. Polish abortion rights activist vows to appeal case
  8. How German business interests have shaped EU climate agenda

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic and Baltic ways to prevent gender-based violence
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersCSW67: Economic gender equality now! Nordic ways to close the pension gap
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersCSW67: Pushing back the push-back - Nordic solutions to online gender-based violence
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersCSW67: The Nordics are ready to push for gender equality
  5. Promote UkraineInvitation to the National Demonstration in solidarity with Ukraine on 25.02.2023
  6. Azerbaijan Embassy9th Southern Gas Corridor Advisory Council Ministerial Meeting and 1st Green Energy Advisory Council Ministerial Meeting

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us