Ukrainian MP from far right Svodoba “negociating” the resignation of the state television’s director
Btw, the MP is a member in the comission for free speech. See his tactics from 4:44
Btw, the MP is a member in the comission for free speech. See his tactics from 4:44
A weighted average of four political polls in the Netherlands shows that PVV (Partij voor de Vrijheid in Dutch, Freedom Party in English) stays on top of the public options preferences and has the chance to win 25 to 29 seats in the Parliament while the in office governing coalition (VVD and PvdA) have dropped dramatically. VVD is expected to win 20-24 seats, SP between 20 and 24 and D66 between 19 and 21.
This infographic shows how PVV score has increased since 2012.
PVV is a far right wing party led by Geert Wilders and just taking a look at its agenda gives you sufficient reasons to fear its coming to power. Skimming through PVV’s political agenda for 2010-2015 finds positions like:
– Restrictions on immigrant labour from new EU member states and Islamic countries;
– Closing of Islamic schools entirely;
– Dutch language proficiency and a 10-year Dutch residency and work experience requirement for welfare assistance;
– Withdrawal from the European Union;
– Allow for easy entry without visa of persons with western EU passports except Polish, Bulgarians, Romanians etc;
– Abolish the European Parliament and no working together to any EU activity;
– Binding referendum on subjects like the EU and a multicultural society;
– No more tax money to “(political) left” organizations;
– Keeping track of the ethnicity of people who committed crimes;
– Binding assimilation contracts for immigrants;
– Taxes on the Islamic headscarf and forbid the Quaran;
– Ban on headscarves in any public function.
Why are you even talking about extremist and populist parties? You want to make them even more popular than they already are? We should ignore them and cram them in the garbage bin! You are partly right, however, I will give you two arguments why we should still talk about these things. In the end I will tell you what I think we should do more concretely besides just speaking about extremists and populists.
The first argument has to do with an article I read called “The good side of homophobia”. It was a personal story of a gay BBC journalist covering the frontlines of Russian homophobia. His name was Henley. Henley did his job of reporting from the field and in a separate piece he put his own personal story about how he felt when doing interviews and what was like to be hated by people who didn’t even know why they hate him for. Where is the wisdom in this story? Well, the fact that he could broadcast his sexuality to the 180 million people who listen to BBC and make many feel proud of him means that in some countries, at least, we have come a very long way in the right direction. The good side of homophobia is its vanishing side was the conclusion of the article I want to emphasize here. Now let’s face it: if you were born and educated in a society that was hostile to minorities and you ended up on the other side of the barricade you might have come to this conclusion because you listened to people, entered into conversations and were emphatic. Talking about these issues and not excluding even the opinions of radicals can turn productive.
Here’s a more philosophical argument for you if you are into that. Let’s say you are on one of the two sides: either think speech harms others or that it doesn’t. If you think it does than one could argue for limiting freedom of speech for the safe of allegedly protecting others and I doubt we are 100% in for that. A counter speech that would advocate for those harmed would come more handy. If on the other hand you think speech can’t harm that I have something to ask you who are you and where did you come from?
Who’s the enemy in my backyard again? In short the enemies are the far-right political parties and similar narratives, politicians and public figures who talk the politics of hate around the EU. What happens is that they got more popular with the beginning and prolongation of the financial crisis and are expected to earn three to four times more seats in this year’s European Parliament elections. In the same time politics became less open and less representative for LGBT people, immigrants, Roma, youth or poor and minorities in general. Extreme positions against these groups have risen and have been picked up by the media. Nevertheless media can be biased and it is likely to produce a conflict instead of objectively inform and include multiple positions. It so happens that an extreme position – far right in our case – in the public sphere is not always counterbalanced with the same intensity by its progressive opposite.
More concretely what I propose is to voice a “No” to hate politics. NoToHatePolitics is such a movement that does not represent a political party but it intends to denounce the far-right political radicalism within the EU and of those who speak the politics of hate. We aim at taming the dispersion of hate speech and challenge the recent fascist and racist features of politics. This will help us know better each country through a direct conversation and not solely through news scraps of their position.
NoToHatePolitics is meeting online, does online sit-ins, talks about recent news and analysis about far-right parties, movements and activists. We would also like mobilize on different occasions and connect to other groups that fight hate politics around EU and the world.
What you can do? Find and follow us on https://notohatepolitics.wordpress.com/ and https://www.facebook.com/notohatepolitics and write us about the radical party in your country. Talk to your friends, relatives and peers and ask them not to vote for radicals. We can’t afford to turn back the clock and waste time on hate speech and hate politics!
Jobbik, the Hungarian far right party was founded in 2002 by a few undergraduate students. Soon they became a widespread social movement, whit the aim of not letting Hungary to be owned by foreign investors and bankers (sic). They became a political party in 2003 and allied with MIÉP, the former, first far right party of Hungary.
The political crisis in 2006 provided an excellent opportunity for Jobbik to quickly emerge to the position of the third most popular party in Hungary. They won 3 seats at the 2009 European Parliamentary elections, which indicated the first milestone in their (must say) political success. The 2010 Hungarian Parliamentary elections proved that Jobbik has a substantial number of voters in the state, who made 47 seats out of 386 available for them.
But who vote for them? Well, one might assume that the majority of supporters come from disadvantaged and neglected groups of society, such as unemployed people, or those, who live in the countryside, and have no real perspectives of the future. Reality shows the complete opposite. Jobbik’s voters are composed of young (between 20-35), educated people, who obtain university diplomas and have jobs. This is a frightening and sad pattern. Young adults were yet to choose a sympathetic political party due to their age, therefore, it was easy to Jobbik to gather them around their cause.
Jobbik’s propaganda is composed of anti-EU, anti-Roma and pro-death penalty rhetoric. Also, they are implicitly speaking against the Jewish community. Truth must be told, they favor agricultural and industrial developments in the country… but out of that?
Jobbik’s politicians burn the EU flag during a street protest in 2012 (source: http://www.hetivalasz.hu)
In Romania at this point there is no particular political party that could be identified as radical right wing. The Great Romania (PRM) was the hideous party to play this role until the 2008 elections when they did not even make the electoral threshold and did not got any place in the Parliament. This party had it all: xenophobia, antisemitism, radical nationalism, populism, conservatorism and even denied the Holocaust untill 2004 when suddenly changed its mind. Here is a sample of the involuntary humour these guys used to produce: “The Romania government is run by the Hungarian Jew George Soros from the USA”. Their charismatic leader was kicked out of the party and he is now a MEP.
Today’s populist is PP-DD who state that they are of no political doctrine; they are a weird animal of sort-of-left-wing, nationalism and surrealism. However they are no match to PRM’s hate politics.
The overall public speech has not improved too much since the populists went down the drain. We still have individual discharges of hate politics ranging from 2007 President’s name calling “filthy gypsy” on a journalist to the fact that there is difficult to identify more than one MP at this point that would sustain in public the civil partnership between couples of the same sex.
Romania President and the “agenda setters”
Radical politicians are seen as either coming from a dystopia or as eyes opening genuine saviors. I for one reserve the right to distribute them in the first bin and find their rhetoric as a fantastic over-simplification of the social and economic conditions. Add up as a disturbing factor how populists (far right especially) report to morality and rights in relative terms: for them it is more a survival in the fight between good and evil that seems to condense politics to a battle against conspiracy.
The National Front in France, United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) in UK, the Freedom Party (PVV) in the Netherlands, Golden Dawn in Greece, Jobbik in Hungary, Vlaams Belang in Belgium’s, Italy’s Northern League in Italy, Finns Party in Findland and Progress Party in Norway are just the top of a list of populist and radical parties in Europe. Not only they make the news (although they have few leaders) but make it in their national parliaments. Their electoral straight is even estimated to increase in the forthcoming European Parliament elections (for EU member states).
Is grass root populist bad?
I agree that these parties represent the will of some people, especially of those dissilussioned, confused and anxious about to what they belong to, where their country is heading, and whether their leaders can do anything about it, as Dominique Reynié puts it. These voters do not hold an inner drive for extreme politics nor are they manipulated. On the contrary, as the case of Jobbik’s supporters shows, these voters are predominantly young men and a significant proportion of them (22%) have a university or college education. The common denominator for these supporters is the translation of economic hardship or perceived status challenges into positions against a range of things depending from where the party operates. For the Western European parties the speech focuses on anti-immigration, anti-Islamisation, preserving national wealth (hence anti-EU). For the Eastern European parties the scapegoats are Jews, Roma and minorities. National and religious values rather than wealth are to be preserved for the latter case (hence Euroscepticism).
These parties do not bring new topics on the political scene but popular and symbolic myths, identity politics and over-simplification.
What will happen in the EP elections?
Some estimate that another thing populists have in common at least for this EP elections is that they are scoring high in the polls. The overall seats they will gain in the EP can even increased to 3 times. These figures can be filtered in two ways: the pessimists think that the populist radical right politicians will overwhelm the European Parliament. They will organize in parliamentary groups and influence policies against the big three group (the EPP, S&D and ALDE groups). The sceptics articulate that the radical populists will sit in the non-attached section (the Front National and the PVV) or in the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group (Lega Nord and the True Finns). They will be numerous but will do politics as usual. Politics as usual in these two groups means basically – according to Doru Frantulescu – less cohesion in comparison to the big groups and more nominal power (number of seats) than real power (the percentage of winning votes in the Parliament which a group is part of).
Counterpoint’s report says more or less the same thing: it is speaking time that is of real importance for populist radical right MEPs and not policy drafting. They tend to use the plenary time as a platform to espouse their views to the wider public rather than policy drafting.
Suppose the predictions are right: the increased number of populist in the EP will not lead to a reshape in EU public debate for the next five years. Suppose a coalition can be built in EP and either integrate the populists or make them stay in a beautiful isolation. Having these in mind what is still worrying is the spillover effect of what the populist preach. The velocity of their electoral gains from one mandate to another and the economic context that does not seem to get better any time soon raises the question: “how much more time until the populist will become a critical mass and their electoral score will have a say in EU policies?”
 A dystophia is the oppose of utopia. Dystopias are often characterized by dehumanization, totalitarian governments, environmental disaster, or other characteristics associated with a cataclysmic decline in society. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dystopia
The rise of far right parties in Europe dates back to the euro crisis of 2008. Many Europeans got disappointed in politics and in the concept of the European Union. This political gap provided an excellent opportunity for populist parties to gain disillusioned voters over. Especially young, educated, easy-to-pursue adults joined them. It paved their way to national Parliaments, which ensures a legitimate forum for them to spread their ideas.
The message they communicate is usually composed of Euroscepticism, strong nationalism and explicitly or implicitly expressed hate toward immigrants and other minority groups living in their countries. Far right parties’ popularity is of great concern especially nowadays, since the Old Continent is preparing for the European Parliamentary elections held in May, 2014. Due
to numerous newspaper articles and political forecasts, it is probable that a significant number of Parliamentary seats will be taken by radical parties. Their high representation in the EP might impose an obstacle on debates over EU enlargement processes and integration policies. The fundamental problem is that they question the functioning and legitimacy of the EU’s institutional system.Their notion of supporting national sovereignty and independency is not compatible with the EU’s integration endeavors in their view.
Not long ago, both the British Prime Minister and leaders of the Hungarian extreme-right Jobbik party suggested the necessity of a referendum to ask citizens whether they wish their states remain members of the EU. Imposing restrictions on the number of immigrants arriving to the UK is another emerging debate in Britain. Switzerland, which belongs to the Schengen zone and member of EFTA, went further this week, since people have voted in favor of restricting immigration to the country. These events undermine the fundamental principles and freedoms of the Union and Europe itself. It debilitates the picture of an open, inclusive European Union, rested upon the aim of an economically and politically unified Europe. Xenophobic voices and anti-immigration attitudes disrupt the European community, and threaten the EU’s good connections with foreign allies. Nevertheless, it throws back its credibility on international platforms.
The current integration stage of the EU and its status in the world might be destructed by loud and provocative populist parties. It is likely that their off-color members makes the EU look ridiculous and light-minded in the eyes of international community. One might assume that young and aspirant politicians of far right parties would refresh the EU by setting new goals and apply different perspectives beneficial for the community. However, the rhetoric they use points to the opposite direction and projects the picture of a disintegrating Europe. The fight of clashing interests and differing opinions ideally leads to a comprehensive consensus between parties.
The continuous critique of the EU’s institutions and its functioning foments more thoughtful policy-making processes. It necessitates a respectful and intelligent way of debate, which is endangered now, with regard to the emerging popularity of far-right parties. The majority of EP seats will most probably go to moderate European parties in May, therefore, decision-making in the EU will not depend on populist lobby in the next five years. The harsh rhetoric used by the far right is appealing to many voters – and frightening to others.
The question emerges whether for how long will the EP’s composition remain similar to its current state. There is no guarantee that far right parties will always be on the verge of EU-level debates. If their support gradually increases over time, Europe might face a majority of extreme right representatives in Strasbourg in the future. Overall, this spring will be an exciting season in the life of Europe and the European Union, as well.