Far-right parties and movements differ based on the specific context and circumstances of each country. Nevertheless, they share several common characteristics and ideological tenets that define them as a distinct current. Over the 2000s and 2010s, these groups have notched notable political victories, whether domestically, in the European Parliament, or in the United States, with some far-right figures ascending to positions of power in countries like Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, and the United States. The core attributes of the far-right include skepticism about political and economic unity (such as the European Union), rejection of regional integration, hostility towards immigrants, issues of identity and integration, populism, repudiation of liberal orientations, and advocacy for a strict state.
A defining feature of the far-right is skepticism about the importance and viability of the European Union. This viewpoint began to take shape in the 1980s, starting in Britain and subsequently spreading to other parts of Europe. The spectrum of this skepticism ranges from concerns over the EU encroaching on British sovereignty to outright rejection of EU membership. Some analysts suggest that British reticence towards European integration is rooted both historically and culturally, including traditional biases against France and Germany, and a preference for maintaining stronger ties with the Commonwealth and the United States.
Far-right parties argue that the European Union undermines national sovereignty through the removal of borders and the expansion of its powers. Therefore, they oppose regional integration and the idea of joining larger regional blocks due to their extreme nationalist and cultural views. The crises of globalization and the challenges within the Eurozone have fostered a state of discontent, with far-right proponents frequently attributing nearly every domestic issue to the EU. Consequently, the far-right vehemently opposes the EU’s expansion, viewing it as a threat to national identity and cultural integrity. They also criticize the EU as a financial drain, a cause of lost border control and rising crime rates, and a promoter of excessive bureaucracy.
By the 1990s, the immigration problem became a key concern for far-right supporters, resulting in a discourse resonating widely with the events of 9/11 in the United States. Far-right resorted to exploiting internal or global crises and weaponizing them against refugees and immigrants to make their point and fears of immigration rates; particularly waves of immigration from Islamic countries and Africa. This view of immigrants has culminated in holding them as a grave threat that must be eradicated because of the danger they pose to Europe’s security, jobs, Christian identity, and values. A number of scholars have identified this as the primary image of far-right parties, which is occasionally followed by violent actions against immigrants and minorities.
Far Right parties and movements view that minorities, who cannot adapt to the country’s dominant culture, should be excluded. They also believe that foreign immigrants are the primary cause of high crime and unemployment rates, and that the immigrant culture prevents them from integrating into the host country. As a result, they undermine national security and culture. These parties regard immigrants, particularly those coming from developing countries, as a threat to their jobs, security, culture, health, lifestyle and national identity. Therefore, such parties constantly repeat a number of slogans, such as “France for the French “, “Austria first”, and so on. The anti-immigrant stance leads to an increase in xenophobia, anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred and discrimination (more widely known as Islamophobia).
Islamophobia has become one of the main features relevant to far right, as most far-right parties focus their discourse on Muslims as the source of problems in their countries. The term Islamophobia is most commonly used to describe prejudice, negative feelings, and hostility towards Islam and Muslims. Islamophobia is based on ideas about Islam and Muslims as a cultural and ethnic group. These hostile ideas portray Islam and Muslims as an existential threat to non-Muslims. The theory of “Eurabia” is a major driver of Islamophobia in the West, as far-right activists believe that European elites and Muslim leaders have engaged in a secret plan to “Islamize” Europe!
A case study in the UK shows that anti-Muslim hatred and discrimination are twice as common among far-right supporters as among other parties. In the wake of 9/11 and the terrorist attacks in London and Madrid, Islamophobia has increased across Europe. According to a report by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, one in three Muslims experiences prejudice. Another report by Open Society, which interviewed Muslims in eleven European cities, found that 50% of them had experienced discrimination, compared to 9% of non-Muslims. The far right views Muslims as a threat to the social order. Jörg Haider, the founder of the Freedom Party of Austria, believes that Islam is incompatible with Western values and that Muslims are a source of intolerance.
Although it is a controversial term, political populism is a pattern of political discourse. As a result, some scholars classify it as a political discourse targeting the middle and popular classes, while being based on criticizing the elites and the state. Others have pointed out that it represents a political procedure where charismatic politicians seek direct popular support in a public discourse challenging traditional democratic institutions. Accordingly, the term may be used to replace concepts such as nationalism, protectionism, xenophobia, and chauvinism.
Consequently, populism and many of the far right’s objectives are so similar that they might be considered as two sides of the same coin. Both aim to bring about change by seizing power due to the failure of the ruling elites to fulfill the hopes of broad segments of society. Additionally, they try to compel others to share their beliefs by adopting particular viewpoints. Therefore, the rise of far-right extremist movements in European countries and the United States had a significant impact on the growth of “populism”. After all, populism involves underestimation of issues, promising to achieve the people’s highest aspirations through policies marked by ambiguity and superficiality, along with focusing on the state of polarization and division within the state, and fueling feelings of anger towards the other. In addition, populist discourse depends on disinformation to maintain the full support they receive. Populism divides society into two morally conflicting groups and adopts a political discourse against the “corrupt ruling elites” and the status quo. It also views the political scene according to the “They and We” or “People and Enemy” dichotomy.
While political analyst Cass Mudd contends that nationalist populists frequently represent a very noisy minority rather than a silent majority, the far right views itself as a representative of the silent majority that the ruling elites disregard. Basically, populism is essentially an attempt to split society into two opposing groups: the “corrupt” elite and the “pure people.” It is a strategy based on the idea of “us vs. them.” Accordingly, people are seen as another homogeneous community concerned with safeguarding the common good, while institutions are seen as harmonious entities only interested in their own well-being. Researchers suggest that populism is sometimes interpreted as a “criticism of elites”. More significantly, populists assert that they alone speak for what they typically refer to as “the real people” or the “silent majority,” depriving all other candidates of legitimacy.
Therefore, it may be concluded that populism eventually contributes to the development of extreme nationalism, which nourishes racism. In this context, far-right parties are trying to focus on national identity and culture, arguing that minorities, immigrants, and lenient-ruling regimes pose an existential threat to this identity. Far-right supporters conclude that the indigenous citizen should be prioritized in terms of social services, including health, education, work, pensions, etc.
The far right generally opposes liberalism and capitalist ideas, though this is not always the case in the USA. This rejection is primarily the result of social and religious reservations, as this trend perceives them as the driving force behind profound social transformations that have a detrimental effect on long-standing customs and traditions. Some even predict the decline of ideas of reconciliation, convergence, and integration in favor of far-right trends that openly declare hostility towards everything different from them and encourage violence and displacement through their political language. It should be noted that this growing menace is spreading throughout the old continent, whose trend has changed recently, due to the visible acceptance and respect shown to political viewpoints that were formerly shunned because of intolerance.
Far-right movements believe that it is necessary to establish a society that rigorously upholds social heritage and traditions to maintain national and cultural identity both domestically and internationally. They also support the use of violence against deviators.
Most often, far-right parties in various countries use religious discourse to attract voters and justify their hostile positions towards some issues of society, by focusing on religious identity and values, particularly Christian values. According to Jacob Schwörer and Xavier Romero-Vida, these parties’ communication strategy is based on presenting Christianity as a local reference point, emphasizing Christian symbols and values as understood by those parties and their movements, and focusing on them to attract a big number of voters. Thus, the far right grounds its discourse on the defense of Christian identity and values; invoking national security concerns and promoting conservative positions on social policies.
The emphasis on Christianity is mixed with the marginalization of all other religions, particularly Islam, where far right parties depict its followers as a new religious outgroup. According to a 2020 study by Jakob Schwörer and Xavier Romero-Vida, which examined the discourse of 36 parties in Europe, such parties primarily focus on rejecting the religious group that they perceive as foreign, namely Islam, and rarely mention internal groups like Christianity. In addition, such parties consistently propagate the supposed conflict between Islam and them and the incompatibility between both parties. Thus, it is appropriate to provide some examples for election propaganda models that certain far-right parties employ in their campaigns. The Alternative for Germany, for instance, put up election posters in the German state of Bavaria in 2018 with the message, “Preserve Christian values.”, “Bavaria is not the home of Islam”. These parties reject not only what is called “radical Islam,” but also Islamic figures and symbols that do not fall into the extremist or extremist categories.
This discourse was the focus of Trump’s election campaign in the USA as He introduced himself as a Christian American soldier. During a public lecture at a Christian university, he declared: “Whether we want to talk about it or not, Christianity is under terrible siege right now. However, if you were there [namely, in the White House], you would have a lot of power that would set you apart from everyone else”. Thus, it becomes clear that the far right tends to resort to religious discourse, in most cases, to justify its political positions, especially regarding the focus on Christian values and identity, and hostility to Islam and Muslims as well as accusing Islam of not belonging to Western civilization or values. Islam, in their view, is a tool for demolishing, not for constructing.
This term appeared about 30 years ago, and was initially used in the field of information, its systems, and communication networks, but it quickly moved to the field of social, political, and economic work. The word networking refers to a communication system linking a group of parties. Webster’s Dictionary defines “networking” as a type of overlap and a model of internal communications between a specific group or system. Networking includes the exchange of information and services between individuals, groups, and institutions. It also helps in exchanging information, establishing the foundations of mutual understanding to formulate a common vision, as well as enhancing dialogue and information exchange among countries.
The use of this term has grown in recent years as a result of the shared challenges faced by several nations, particularly those in Europe, whose nations developed the idea for international cooperation and coordination on a range of issues, including immigration and asylum. Subsequently, this idea led to close continental collaboration, or “continental networking”. Continental networking is an organizational mechanism whereby countries from different continents coordinate efforts, positions, and resources towards achieving specific objectives. Finding points of agreement between like-minded currents on separate continents is more beneficial and effective than acting alone.
While this strategy is adopted by various countries to enhance their efforts to confront the grave challenges they face, far-right parties in Europe, North America, South America, and Australia have also adopted such a strategy to boost their agenda, most notably the prevention of immigration, especially from Muslim countries. In Europe, for instance, the far-right Spanish party “Vox” is striving to globalize its efforts by creating alliances with representatives of the far right around the world. Its leader, Abascal, is working to network with other leaders who adopt the same political orientation to win the European elections, June 2024 onwards. This coordination resulted in expanding the circle of Spanish party alliances to include “Brothers of Italy”, Hungarian “Fidesz”, French “National Rally”, “Alternative for Germany”, and Polish “Justice and Law”. Abascal has expanded his network beyond the old continent through his full support for former US President Donald Trump in his election campaign for the presidency in 2024. This took place in their meeting at the annual conference held by the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) between February 21 and 24, 2024, on the outskirts of the American capital, Washington.
Following Abascal’s lead, Javier Milei of Argentina has redrawn the map of regional political alliances and established a powerful global bloc within the Latin American framework. His initial steps in this regard were to extend invitation to numerous global leaders of far-right groups and the leader of the Spanish “Vox” party to attend his inauguration as President of the Republic. Numerous individuals accepted this invitation, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and a delegation from Peru’s far-right government on behalf of Peruvian President Dina Boluarte. On February 12, 2024, the Argentine newspaper Info Bay also referred to the ideological match as well as the political and commercial alliance that Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has concluded with Argentine President Javier Melay during their meeting in Chigi Palace.
Considering the challenges facing EU countries, 15 European countries are seeking “new solutions” to deal with the influx of migrants and transfer them more easily outside the member states, as the EU faces a significant increase in asylum applications, exceeding 1.14 million requests in 2023. This is the highest level since 2016 according to the European Union Asylum Agency.
Regarding the latest developments of the Rwanda Immigration Bill, the British government announced that it would start detaining migrants to deport them to Rwanda within 9 or 11 weeks, in a move that lays the foundation for the immigration policy adopted by the current British Prime Minister. Last April, the Parliament approved a law that facilitates the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda if they arrive in Britain without permits. Sunak wants the first flights to take off in July. Meanwhile (May 2024), more than 7,500 migrants have arrived in England in small boats from France. The government says the deportation policy will prevent migrants from making dangerous journeys across the English Channel. Five people died while trying to cross the channel in May 2024.
Relevantly, Sunak said, “The migrants heading to Ireland after arriving in the United Kingdom on small boats is a sign that the plan to deport migrants to Rwanda has begun to pay off. This comes at a time when Irish Deputy Prime Minister Michael Martin expressed his deep concern about the deportation of migrants, saying: “the threat of being deported to Rwanda had led to people crossing the border from Northern Ireland”. In an interview with Sky News, Sunak said the “deterrent is already having an impact because people are worried about coming here”. Sunak said that Martin’s comments showed that “illegal migration is a global challenge, which is why you’re seeing multiple countries talk about doing third-country partnerships, looking at novel ways to solve this problem, and I believe will follow where the UK has led”. He added: “But what it also shows, I think, is that the deterrent is, according to your comment, already having an impact”.
According to a Financial Times report, the British government paid Rwanda an additional 100 million pounds ($125 million) as part of Sunak’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, bringing the total cost of this plan so far to 240 million pounds ($300 million). The additional payment is another sign of how much capital Sunak has invested in this controversial scheme to manage the refugee crisis in Britain. London is expected to make another 50-million-pound payment next year, bringing the total cost to 290 million pounds.
Austria has called on EU countries to implement the controversial British model of Rwanda, in an effort to address asylum requests or seek help from other countries outside Europe, despite the obstacles facing this policy for legal and human rights considerations. “Austria will do its best in the EU to set the political and legal conditions for asylum procedures and develop a Rwanda-style scheme,” said Karl Nehammer, Austrian Chancellor.
Surprisingly, the denial of scientific facts and reality is one of the hallmarks of far-right discourse, as is clearly evident in handling of the issue of “climate change” whose effects on the whole world are increasing day by day, and it is not expected that any country or people would be spared. This crisis affects all living beings on earth, and even threatens the continuation of life itself on the planet. In a study published in SAGE’s journal Political Studies, Jakob Schwörer and Belén Fernández-García analyzed the policies of right-wing parties and statements in ten Western European countries between 1990 and 2022 to identify the behavior of populist far-right parties on climate change. The study showed that far-right parties were the most skeptical about climate protection and were somewhat divergent. While the Italian and French right-wing parties support measures on climate protection, their counterparts in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Britain oppose them. Still, some parties in Sweden, Norway, and Austria adhere to the “gray zone”. In these countries, parties support action on climate issues, but also express significant doubts about the measures taken and the severity of the crisis. The important question here is: what are the factors that push these parties to adopt such position on climate change? In fact, there are several factors that may explain the situation, most importantly:
- In their view, this is related to increased migration. They claim that climate policies will lead to increased migration, and it is known that their discourse focusses much on anti-immigration and xenophobia in general.
- Therefore, they believe that climate policies will create economic harm, especially to the working class, and most significantly farmers.
- Climate policies will increase energy costs, reduce the economic competitiveness of their countries, and enhance the economic capabilities of other countries. Therefore, they believe that opposing these policies protects national interests.
- They believe that climate policies are only an elitist project to control the masses and are not in response to a real climate crisis.
Thus, it is clear that these parties’ denial of climate change and opposition to environmental and climate protection policies form a part and parcel of their comprehensive political agenda, although they have different motives, as noted above. Such difference is more articulated in the United States of America, as reflected in the bitter political competition between the two main parties in the country. In addition, there are companies and businessmen benefiting from the existing fossil fuel energy systems and other causes of greenhouse gas emissions.