Should We Still Fear The Far-Right?

Whilst the regimes of Franco, Hitler and Mussolini have long passed into the history books, glimpses of the far-right still remain in our society. In 2002 Europe was shaken when Jean-Marie Le Pen - leader of the far-right Front National - finished in 2^nd place behind Jacques Chirac in the French Presidential Elections. In Italy, Alessandra Mussolini - Il Duce's granddaughter - was tipped to win 9% of the popular vote in the recent regional elections. Discontent over the EU constitution was shown by the successful “no” campaigns in France and Holland, partly thanks to the views of far-right groups. And in Germany the NPD remains a potent force, even on the political sidelines. So, should we be afraid, be very afraid?

To a certain extent, it is foolish to ignore the far-right. The first reason for this is the EU. With growing discontent in and over the EU, shown by two rejections of the Constitution, far-right politicians could tear it apart and open up the door for far-right governance. Fascist parties - such as the FN, BNP, National Alliance and the NPD - are based on racism, xenophobia and geopolitics, the idea that the geographical location of a country dictates its standing in the international hierarchy. They also push for the glorification of the state - Hitler wanted Germany to be a world power after the humiliating Treaty of Versailles. In Britain too such principles exist. The National Front is apparent in the Royal Navy. The British National Party (BNP) has grown in support over recent years as the immigration crisis has worsened, to the extent that the number of racial hatred incidents - like the Bradford riots in 2003 - have risen, and through they didn't win any seats in the 2005 election Nick Griffin's party won higher percentages in most or all of the seats at which they fielded candidates. I would even argue that Robert Kilroy-Silk is a fascist; the ex-chat show host lost his job for a racist remark, and his controversial politicking with both UKIP and Veritas has made him the Tanned Tyrant. Such principles are what the European Union stands against; it recognises that there is no international political hierarchy, and that co-operation and consensus are the best way to peaceful existence and trade. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was founded in 1957 on these precise premises - to allow liberal, co-operative governments to negotiate calmly and to avoid a third world war. Since much of Europe dislikes the EU, fascist parties could capitalise should the trend extrapolate.

It is also rational to fear the far-right because the current political and economic climates are ideally poised for extremist and minority parties to capitalise. Cynicism and Euroscepticism have increased rapidly since Maastricht. The dissatisfaction people display with the mostly unelected institutions has allowed the BNP and the FN to move up in the polls. But the main reason is economic. The BNP didn't win any seats because the economy under Labour has been stable and steadily growing (at least, until now.). In Europe, particularly since the launch of the Euro, this is not the case. In Italy, Roberto Maroni of the Northern League - one of the four parties in the ruling coalition - has campaigned to reintroduce the Lira, which I suspect Ms. Mussolini will endorse. Though it has been described as "economic suicide" (The Economist), the move is popular with Italians. As The Economist puts it: "Italians… see it [the Euro] as having created a pretext for outrageous price increases and as a cause for the economy's dismal performance.". Since Berlusconi faces the challenge of re-election in 2006, he may jump on the bandwagon to win votes. In France and Germany unemployment is high, 9.9% and 11.6% respectively, and this has led to a surge in votes for the far-right. The bulk of fascist votes comes from unemployed nationals who are out of a job because of cheaply paid immigrants. Jean-Marie Le Pen famously claimed "Un million de chômeurs, c'est un million d'immigrés de trop" ("One million unemployed equals one million immigrants too many"), which led to a surge in support in 2002. Because of the economic crisis, 38% of the unemployed voted FN. As long as the Eurozone continues to grow slower than Britain, Monsieur Le Pen et al are in a pretty strong position.

The third reason for trepidation is the curse of our history. There will always be people, no matter how nostalgic, who will look back at the relationship between countries in history and claim that nothing's changed. At any England v. Germany football match, slogans like "Don’t Mention the War" and "5-1: Blitzed Again" will always be chanted or paraded on big banners. The old stereotypes of our European neighbours still exist and are often the first things to come to mind when we are asked to visualise a typical Frenchman. The French still don't really get on with the Germans (no matter how genial Chirac and Schröeder looked when they were together.). We still hearken back to Trafalgar and Waterloo as a taunt to the French; that is the reason for the Trafalgar re-enactment being so politically correct. And they in return still criticise our food: Chirac quipped that only Finnish cuisine is worse. This stereotyping and xenophobia will continue to feed fascist leaders. The longer they exist, the more powerful the far-right becomes.

On the other hand, a number of obstacles stand in the way of a fascist Europe. Firstly it is important to bear in mind that the far-right parties are still minority parties, and probably always will be. The BNP didn't win any seats because they want to restore national service and make laws allowing people to own handguns above board, which is currently illegal. Minority parties - not just fascists but also far-left groups like the Socialist Workers' Party, Greens and Communist League - have rarely influenced mainstream politics; the KPD (German Communist Party) never entered government in the entire Weimar period (1919-1933). As a result these parties will go to whatever ends to cultivate support. Nick Griffin opts for inciting hatred and achieving martyrdom by being arrested. Hitler's SA broke up left-wing meetings and slaughtered communists in the streets. Alessandra Mussolini allegedly forged signatures to get the numbers necessary for her party to stand for election. Such methods are very unlikely to bring a smile to the public, either at home or abroad (though Germany was an exception), and as such their support is limited, so even in a coalition system it is unlikely they will be part of any government. In Britain, the BNP will find it even harder because of First-Past-The-Post.

The second reason why this fear is unrealistic is the level of popular appeal. Support for the Nazis was famously described as being "a mile wide but an inch deep". Fascist parties' views are so extreme and ruthless that only die-hard neo-Nazis will be seriously attracted to their demands. Traditionally, most working-class people would have voted Labour and most upper-class people would have voted Conservative. Fascist parties have no such power base - Hitler drew his support from big business, the working classes and rural villagers - so they have to have populist policies that will appeal in some way to everyone. Nazism has many contradictions. The theory of Lebensraum ('living space') clashes with the theory of the Volksgemeinschaft ('people's community') - Hitler is promising that everyone will live in villages and be of one feudal class, but at the same time wants to wage industrialised war and build up the Third German Empire. Again the policies don't work, such as having state-owned industry which requires subsidy and thus higher tax (to satisfy the workers) and yet promising to keep taxes low (to appease big businessmen.). Such discrepancies are apparent in modern parties; it is needed to draw support and it is the reason why the NPD, BNP, FN and National Alliance are still on the sidelines.

The third and final reason not to panic is that the policies and attitudes of far-right parties are so fickle that they stand no chance of a breakthrough. True, the policies of all parties change over time - Labour would never have won a landslide in 1997 if they wished to run the economy as they did in 1979, and in any case public opinion should dictate the government's actions. But in any successful party there are no major U-turns, whether during an election or in office. Harold Macmillan's U-turn on EEC membership in 1961 cost the Tories the 1964 election. In this age of increased public scrutiny and distrust of politicians, people will notice even the slightest alterations in party policy. And if there is clear difference between policies at two consecutive elections - e.g. if Labour wanted to privatise the Bank of England in 1997, but wanted it renationalised in 2001 - it could change the way people vote. In the 1992 election Labour were all set to win until Neil Kinnock changed his mind about introducing PR. The next day the Conservatives won a fourth term. In the best of parties, U-turns happen maybe once every few years. Far-right parties will change their messages in line with the newspapers.

In summary then, there is the potential for a Europe dominated by far-right politics. The next French presidential elections are due in 2007; Chirac is certain to go, and Le Pen stands a fair chance of replacing him if he can inject the same enthusiasm into his campaign as he did in 2002. The NPD's fortunes may improve if the political and economic situation worsens. The weakness of the new SPD-CDU centrist “grand coalition” may lead to greater demand for a far-right Chancellor. In a way France and Germany are linked. Should Le Pen become President by whatever margin, the Germans may look for a strong, far-right leader to counterbalance and perhaps overpower Le Pen. Remember, France and not Germany has the seat on the UN Security Council. With the EU in disarray after two rejections of the Constitution the extreme right could be one of many forces only too happy to disband it. Should Berlusconi reintroduce the Lira, he would play into Mussolini's hand and the National Alliance would rise. And whilst economic and social differences remain, there is little scope for restraining the extremists.

And yet, the odds are stacked against them in so many ways. In Britain the electoral system means that the BNP stand very little chance of winning a seat, let alone being in government. The support for the fringe parties on both sides is fickle and dwindling; as people become more sceptical and apathetic they have to rely increasingly on protest votes. Ideological contradictions can no longer be disguised by hypnotic rhetoric and slick PR. It is my belief that at this stage Europe will never be suffocated by the far-right, and the parties will only exist to represent its brainwashed, declining following and to antagonise those in power. However, should Le Pen be elected in 2007, I would not hesitate in changing my mind. Would you?

Bibliography

1. 'In the voting season', Volume 375 Issue 8420, 2005, The Economist.

2. 'Are they winning?', Volume 374 Issue 8419, 2005, The Economist.

3. 'Jean-Marie Le Pen: Avoir Peur, Avoir Très Peur?', Daniel Mumby, 2005.

4. 'The New British Politics', Ian Budge/ Ivor Crewe/ David McKay/ Ken Newton, 2004 (3^rd ed.), Pearson Longman.

5. 'That lovely lira', Volume 375 Issue 8430, 2005, The Economist.

6. 'Qui vote Le Pen?', 2000, Le Monde.

7. 'One country, two governments', Volume 376 Issue 8434, 2005, The Economist.

Daniel Mumby Pages: 3 Lines: 137 Words: 1,856

Bladerunnerismint@hotmail.com