The rise of national populism continues to be a core theme in European politics, but have mainstream politicians and commentators still failed to grasp who populists are and what they want? Drawing on a new book, co-authored with Matthew Goodwin, Roger Eatwell argues that viewing populist movements as expressions of nativism or racism is highly problematic. There needs to be a greater understanding of the views of populist supporters, coupled with an open and frank debate about how immigration stands to influence European societies in the decades to come.
In his September 2018 final State of the Union address, Jean-Claude Juncker warned of a growing ‘unhealthy nationalism’, ‘riddled with both poison and deceit’. In his sights were parties like the French National Rally (formerly National Front), the Italian League, the Alternative for Germany, the ‘Freedom Parties’ in Austria and the Netherlands, the Sweden Democrats, the Danish People’s Party, Fidesz in Hungary and Law and Justice in Poland. All these parties share a common feature: they are widely damned as exclusionary ‘nativists’ and/or ‘racists’, even latter-day ‘fascists’.
In our new book National Populism: The Revolt against Liberal Democracy, Matthew Goodwin and I argue that both nativism and racism can be problematic terms in the context of contemporary European and American politics, while the fascist tag is inappropriate for this family of parties (though not extremist ones like the Greek Golden Dawn). ‘Nativist’ was coined in 19th century America to refer to those who sought to restrict new immigration to just Protestants, but today the term is typically used to refer to anyone who raises questions about the need for extensive new immigration and/or who seeks to defend national culture and traditions. The term ‘racist’ entered common usage in the 20th century, initially referring to the belief that the world was divided into hierarchically ordered races (a view for a time reinforced by racial science), and to a belief in dangerous Jewish conspiracies. Today the scholarly focus is more on a widespread ‘new racism’, which is based on allegedly irreconcilable cultural differences, together with ‘institutional’ and ‘implicit’ racism that do not require any conscious bias or prejudice.
Whilst national populists are linked by their ‘thin’ nationalist and populist ideologies, if we look at specific examples of their discourse and policies we find notable differences. In Central and Eastern Europe it is still possible to find clear traces of anti-Semitism and anti-Roma sentiment, together with a nativist defence of culture in parties such as Hungary’s Fidesz and Poland’s Law and Justice, which rules in a country where well over 90 per cent of people claim Polish nationality. The latter is a major reason why both have resisted EU efforts to distribute refugees since the arrival in Southern Europe of large numbers from the Middle East and beyond after 2014.
In contrast, whilst we can occasionally find old-style racist comments from prominent West European national populists, opposition to new immigration now focuses far more on the need to match new arrivals with skill shortages. A growing concern has also been the perceived dangers of Muslim immigration, which has led to widespread charges of Islamophobia and the claim that national populists fail to distinguish between Muslims and Islamists. Certainly their language can be alarmist, but they also pose legitimate questions about Islam’s attitudes to issues like gay rights, female equality and the separation of church and state, issues which relate to interpretations of culture not pseudo-scientific racial typologies. Thus, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands attacks ‘atavistic’ and ‘totalitarian’ Islam in the name of Dutch equality and freedom, but ethnic minorities like Indonesians have not been subject to collective attack by his Party for Freedom. The party is also not anti-Semitic and strongly supports Israel, with about 10 per cent of Jews voting for it in the 2017 general election.
Marine Le Pen, speaking during a debate on Brexit in the European Parliament, Credit: © European Union 2016 – European Parliament (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Turning to the views of national populist voters generally, although a minority wear the racist badge with pride, we find that large numbers reject the white supremacism and narrow ethnic nationalism that is often associated with them by critics. In Western Europe and the US, few seek to restrict immigration to those who would immediately fit into the dominant culture, though fears about Islam are widespread and many seek to restrict the welfare rights of new economic migrants (a policy which has helped national populists appeal to former social democratic voters in countries like Denmark and Sweden, where such budgets have been under strain).
Moreover, many of the issues raised by national populists address larger questions, such as the importance of a sense of belonging and community in the face of often unprecedented rates of ethnic change. Some European countries have close to, even a higher, percentage of foreign-born population than the US, ranging from 11-17 per cent in Austria, Sweden, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands, while in France the number of Muslims is projected to rise from 9 to 17 per cent by 2050. Surveys show that across Europe and the US overwhelming majorities say that they feel strongly attached to their nation (an average of 82 per cent). It is, therefore, hardly surprising that many are concerned about the implications of growing hyper-diversity, and linked issues such as maintaining the trust which is so central to stable political and social life.
But mainstream politicians and commentators typically show little empathy for such feelings. To take two notable examples: in 2006 David Cameron derided supporters of the rising United Kingdom Independence Party as ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists’, while during the 2016 Presidential campaign Hillary Clinton dismissed half of Donald Trump’s supporters as ‘a basket of deplorables’, people whose views were ‘racist, sexist, homopohobic, Islamophobic – you name it’. These comments reveal much about the elitism of the contemporary mainstream politicians, which helps drive the populist side of national populism. Indeed, there is evidence that charges of ‘racism’ alienate the many national populists who see themselves as motivated by legitimate concerns, rather than bias and hatred.
Although the national populist revolt is driven by far more than concerns about ethnicity and immigration, our main argument in this context is that there needs to be a greater understanding of the views of most of its supporters. In particular, there needs to be an open and frank debate about the size and type of immigration which is acceptable, and how this will affect the nation and different communities, including ethnic minorities, in decades to come.
For more information, see the author’s book, National Populism: The Revolt against Liberal Democracy (co-authored with Matthew Goodwin)
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics.
_________________________________
Roger Eatwell – University of Bath
Roger Eatwell is Emeritus Professor of Politics at the University of Bath.
Fascism is an ideology that opposes free-markets and individual liberty (such as freedom of speech), and instead espouses economic collectivism and political collectivism. If anyone has opinions that contradict the zeitgeist of the elites (i.e., the latest fad), they can/will be condemned and persecuted.
Based on this historical fact (as opposed to contemporary rhetoric), fascism is an ideology of the “progressive” Left.
“Based on this historical fact (as opposed to contemporary rhetoric), fascism is an ideology of the “progressive” Left.”
According to Google, or rather Merriam-Webster ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism ) fascism is “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”
I don’t think it is fair to accuse, say, Jeremy Corbyn, or any other mainstream politician in the UK, of exalting nation or race above the individual. Jeremy Corbyn may agree with some fascists in wanting to restrict free markets, but this is like saying Phil Hammond agrees with Hitler because he wants to build roads.
Fascism (as written by Giovanni Gentile, and as practiced by Benito Mussolini) was quite different than the National Socialism of Hitler. But what they both have in common is Socialism (as evidenced by Mussolini once being a member of the Italian Socialist Party, and him being the editor of Avanti [an Italian Socialist newspaper]).
What they have in common with modern-day Socialists is collectivism. and expanding State power to its fullest extent in government, economics, individual thought, etc…. The difference today is that Socialists like Corbyn and Macron have failed to win the minds and hearts of citizens of their own countries (thus becoming anti-Nationalists), and instead they have focused on expanding their powers by the creation of Empire (EU).
Ultimately, it is not about “Nation” that Fascists truly cared about, but the concept of “Nation” was the quickest most efficient method for power. And after the Great War in which Italy was greatly divided, the spilling of common blood in the War opened the door for Mussolini to maximize his power by acting as a Nationalist. It was “opportunism” to expand their powers, not “Nationalism”. Remember, Mussolini the Socialist opposed Italian involvement in Libya before opportunism made him later support it.
Are we really having the old “the Nazis used the word socialist so they were socialists” argument here? I don’t agree with this article, but at least it tried to move the debate forward. Really not sure how it ended up on this.
And to state the obvious, no, Nazism wasn’t about “socialism”. The word socialist in the early-20th century simply corresponded in broad terms to improving workers’ rights vs employers. It was little more than a buzzword used to show a party was on the side of workers in the hope they would vote for them. Fascism was a perspective on how the whole of society should be structured, with absolute power invested in political leaders, all opposition shutdown, and everyone’s individual interests subsumed by the interests of the nation. No serious person believes these things are the same. It’s an argument that’s been done to death for the last 50 years and the last time I heard anyone come out with this at a panel discussion the groans started immediately.
People, rightly or wrongly, will hurl the word “fascist” at modern politicians who display anti-democratic attitudes, want to shut down political opposition, or demonize minorities. The meaning of that word isn’t going to change based on pedantic/incorrect readings of what Hitler and Mussolini thought. Incidentally, the main reason those who push intolerant viewpoints (like Wilders) are so obsessed with arguing about the meaning of words is that they find it a useful deflection from the quality of their own arguments and policies. That’s always been a tactic of those with extremist views – spend more time arguing about your “right to free speech” or what the word “racist” or “fascist” means than you do talking about policy.
The explanation of the true meaning of “fascism” and its origin is a mere response to those who hurl the allegation of “fascism” to any person who has an alternate/adversarial opinion. So once the initial allegation is removed from the debate, then the response can also be removed from the debate; and only then can policy discussions move forward.
“So once the initial allegation is removed from the debate, then the response can also be removed from the debate; and only then can policy discussions move forward.”
I know you don’t get this John, however I’m going to state the reality of this situation anyway for anyone else who might be reading.
This debate about being called a racist/fascist comes from Wilders and people like him. It’s almost unheard of to hear a credible academic call Wilders a fascist in a study or piece of research. Yet here we are on an academic blog having a debate about how wrong it is to call him a fascist. Why? Because Wilders wants people to constantly have that debate about him.
He spends all his time trying to provoke people with over the top statements (not just about Muslims, about lots of minorities) just so he can have that debate. He has no serious policies and his entire career is based on acting like some defender of free speech who says what people are too scared to say themselves. That’s the act and a fundamental part of that act is he has to pretend everyone is constantly trying to take away his right to free speech.
I have no interest in playing that game. I know you want to get knee deep into a debate about the meaning of the word fascist, argue about socialist links to fascism, free speech and all the other usual topics Wilders loves people to discuss. That’s his agenda and the minute we start arguing about that, he’s won. However it’s important for other people to recognize what this is and how Wilders actually operates. This article doesn’t do that and seems to be saying we should all just accept Wilders’ narrative and then try and argue policy, which is totally missing the point.
Brain
>”He (Wilders) spends all his time trying to provoke people with over the top statements””I have no interest in playing that game. … knee deep into a debate about the meaning of the word fascist,”<
No-one defines "far right" with any consistency.
Yet mostly "far right" is hurled around as a pejorative against anyone who expresses the slightest doubt about:
– a (growing) role of the State
– controlling immigration
– expressing positive views about traditional (home nation) culture
– an establishment "elite"
– identity politics
– more regulations around things like so-called "hate" crime
With self-styled "liberals" defending privilege, promoting divisive "identities" and supporting censorship, surely such views match the usual definition of "far right" ?
@John from Jersey: “Fascism (as written by Giovanni Gentile, and as practiced by Benito Mussolini) was quite different than the National Socialism of Hitler. But what they both have in common is Socialism”. Let’s define terms here. If by Socialist you mean “opposed to free markets” then, yes, I think it is true that all the Fascists I can think of were Socialists. But it doesn’t follow that all Socialists are Fascists. For example, wouldn’t you agree that, inside Spain or outside it, most of those calling themselves Socialists were against Franco in the Spanish Civil War? I think, for example, when George Orwell fought against Franco he earned the right to call himself an anti-fascist, wouldn’t you agree?
To put it another way, there are other options in the political universe than libertarianism and fascism.
Of course not all Socialists were Fascists, as those two ideologies were competitors with one another. But it was the original Fascists (Gentile and Mussolini) who were Socialists, who only adjusted their views when the mood in post Great War Italy desired a Nationalist feeling.
Finally a much needed nuanced parsing of the diversity of attitudes behind the rise of anti-immigration sentiments and nationalism in the Western world in the recent years. Finally, a scholarly work that debunks the common and lazy conflation of nationalism with racism and nativism, and recognises the legitimacy of concerns towards Islamic values and culture, often in tension with those of liberal Western democracies.
“Thus, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands attacks ‘atavistic’ and ‘totalitarian’ Islam in the name of Dutch equality and freedom, but ethnic minorities like Indonesians have not been subject to collective attack by his Party for Freedom.”
If anyone thinks this is a reasonable treatment of Wilders just go read his Twitter account. What you’ll see there is a stream of puerile cartoons mocking Islam, black face caricatures, every crime committed not just by a Muslim (as if that makes it better) but anyone foreign being flagged up… and that was all in the last week. The above makes him sound like a refined political thinker making practical points. He isn’t.
You say we have to spend more time respecting people like Wilders and his supporters (we need to avoid calling them names and instead think about all the valid sensible points they’re making) but sometimes we have to just accept there are politicians who use appeals to the lowest common denominator to win power for themselves. There really isn’t a lot more to understand about Wilders. What he’s doing isn’t new, people have been doing it for hundreds of years. He isn’t even good at it, he just started when populism wasn’t “cool” and now he’s got a monopoly on it.
Do we now have to treat every internet troll as an informed political commentator, and every rabble-rousing nitwit standing for election as a political theorist? People like Wilders have always used the same formula:
1. Base a political career on playing on people’s prejudices against foreigners.
2. Complain about being called “racist” whenever someone disagrees, while making an argument that “we can’t raise questions about immigration anymore without being called a racist” (even if nobody has called them racist).
3. Go back to making silly lowest common denominator arguments about foreigners again.
This article seems to have simply accepted this argument in total, given people like Wilders a whole bunch of respect they don’t actually deserve, and completely missed why these politicians do this in the first place (i.e. because it gets them a political career, even if they don’t believe half of what they say).
And it’s all just rhetoric, the reality isn’t anything like this. If you talk to academics you actually find people tripping over themselves to avoid calling people like Wilders racist because they know they’ll get this argument back if they do. Far from “not being able to discuss immigration”, it’s the single biggest issue in European politics. Do Kurz or Salvini or Seehofer have any problems talking about immigration? They’re in government. The only people who say we can’t discuss immigration today are people who want to push anti-immigration views without receiving any criticism. It’s a rhetorical technique, not reality.
Well done for daring to write a more carefully thought out analyis than most in the MSM.
Just one minor critique:
” they are widely damned as exclusionary ‘nativists’ and/or ‘racists’, even latter-day ‘fascists”
Presumably “Widely” damned means by the MSM.
Most “ordinary” people conflate “populist” with “popular” – and wonder why the sneering.
And the first time most people hear about the AfD or the Sweden Democrats is a TV reporter pre-fixing them with “Far Right” – which is clearly intended to be a dismissive pejorative.
Yet rarely, if ever is any evidence provided.
We almost never get to hear directly from these “appalling” people.
Case in point….
Recently Sky “News” did a 7 minute hatchet job on the “Far Right” AfD.
Mostly we heard the “reporter” framing, characterising and contextualising.
Most of the interviews were with menacing, tattoo-sporting, shaven-head types (aren’t tattoos fashionable ?) – not with the AfD
Only the briefest of words from the local AfD spokesman – and arguably non-controversial.
Oh for a return to journalists as “seekers of the truth” rather than (fake) news makers or political mouthpieces.
Further to Jens’s comments,
I am doing research on Wilders’s parties. His pretense of being a civic-nationalist concerned with protecting liberal freedoms is inconsistent at best. The party may not attack Indonesian immigrants, but it is predictably hostile to Antilleans, the inhabitants of the Dutch territories in the Caribbean. These groups are not Muslim, nor even from a very different civic culture – they are just, mainly, nonwhite. They are also Dutch citizens of long standing. Nevertheless, almost every statement the Dutch Freedom Party makes about them is unstintingly negative, and the party has even called for the forcible exclusion of the Antilles from the Dutch state.
Ethno-nationalism, essentialism, exclusion – these are all intrinsic to radical-right populism. Radical-right voters may not necessarily espouse all of these themes; if they do, they may not embrace them all to the same degrees. But the parties’ themselves are geysers of toxic authoritarianism, majoritarianism, dehumanization and spite. Accepting Wilders’s as a defender of Dutch liberalism against the Muslims is to accept him at face value.
I believe it is a major mistake not to notice the strong ethnic element in the rhetoric of these post-fascist parties. In fact, they renewed the anti-enlightenment patterns used earlier, but watered it down to be acceptable to the masses (it’s a kind of modern cultural racism). You cannot come these days with a 19th century style gobinism, but you can say arabs do not belong to your society. However, the idea (denial of egalitarianism) is the same.This means that you can critisize islamic fundamentalism, but its nonsensical to defend islamophobes. And yes, there is a very strong ethnic (ie. racist) element in nearly all of these political streams, and most of them are authoritarians as well.
You refer to some political parties as being “anti-enlightenment”, so for the purposes of this debate can you define what exactly is “enlightenment” and give examples of it? By doing so, we can then determine what is “anti-enlightenment”.
The fatal flaw in Eatwell’s analysis is that he is taking the people to whom he is referring at their word instead of looking at their actions. Yet, a quick glance at most any comment section on any major news site will reveal that the supporters of the “rightwing populist” parties revel in a blatant, hateful, murderous, and routinely genocidal racism. They were out in force supporting Burmese trolls in the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya. They routinely mock the concern with millions of starving children in Yemen. And they periodically joke about raping their interlocutors in debate.
Somehow, Eatwell assumes that the leaders of their parties, which are typically funded by a blatantly authoritarian and homophobic Russia, would express their racism publicly in no uncertain terms if that were their motivation. But of course, this would lose them a substantial portion of the vote. Yet, we can discern their racism in their hysterical anxiety about Muslims, which is exhibited in his own article above; on their distortion of cultural differences through noting the numbers of foreign born residents, when really these are temporary workers from often highly like minded European societies, which is also exhibited in his own article above; and in the exaggeration of differences in Muslims, many of whom have been living in these societies for generations, which is also exhibited in his article.
Far from some neutral observer, Eatwell is profering the same arguments for racism advanced by these parties while using all their same tricks of the trade to mask his racism. Isn’t it interesting that every racist these days focuses on Muslims and their purported racism, sexism, and authoritarianism, when these attributes are often just as present if not more so in their own movements. Somehow we are supposed to believe that the Syrians in Europe, fleeing for their lives because they risked them to build a secular democracy, are less European and therefore less democratic than the blatantly authoritarian and racist parties governing in Poland and Hungary.
But Eatwell is proffering this same naive narrative, which is only sustained by dividing the world up into the white people who are like ourselves and the darker Muslims who are supposedly so different. Meanwhile, his use of Antisemitism as some kind of measure of fascism is simply ridiculous, and it is offensive to Jews like myself whose identity he uses to advance his racism, when it is the Muslims and not the Jews who are most at risk from this rising fascism, and when it is Israel that provides some its greatest ideological and material support.