The radical right is doing well across Europe. This month alone, the Front National gained in France’s regional elections, while Geert Wilders’ success in the Dutch local elections is a taster of what could come in the upcoming national elections with his Freedom party predicted to become one of the biggest in the country.

Focusing on this worrying trend, Policy Network last week organised an international conference in Copenhagen – home to a government coalition dependent on the far-right Danish People’s Party for legislative support – to trace the causes and consequences of the rise of the far right and draw lessons for the UK.

Clearly, the British National Party, with an estimated support base fluctuating around 2 per cent of voters, remains weak when compared to its continental counterparts. Yet, this should be no reason for complacency. In a paper published alongside the conference, Montserrat Guibernau shows that radical right parties in the Netherlands, Italy, and France have re-framed their discourse in an attempt to shed their racist image and establish themselves as “respectable” parties. Exploiting opportunities opened up by socioeconomic changes and growing political distrust, they have managed to overcome the traditional split between left and right. It is relatively obvious that Nick Griffin is attempting to implement this ‘winning formula’ that was first employed by the Front National, and subsequently copied by all radical-right parties that are making headway in their respective countries.

The debate over whether the BNP should be isolated based on its dubious conversion, or whether it should be allowed a platform, continues. The fact that the recent announcement of Griffin’s reappearance on national television ahead of the general elections triggered the same debate as a year ago, also indicates that little progress has been made in approaching a consensus. Moreover, the discussion dedicated to whether or not the BNP should be denied the ‘oxygen of publicity’ is by now so widespread, that it has become black-and-white at best, or irrelevant at worst.

This does not mean that the BNP has now reached the position of a legitimate or respectable party. What it does mean, however, is that the focus of mainstream parties should shift to developing a more sophisticated response.

Firstly, the BNP endorses a racist and discriminatory ideology – scrapping its whites-only membership criteria will not change this, as was substantiated recently by the courts. Mainstream politicians have an obligation to highlight and condemn this. However, as Nick Lowles from the anti-fascist Searchlight campaign pointed out in Copenhagen, this confrontation should go beyond empty rhetoric. After all, the radical right’s ‘anti-establishment’ emphasis is one of the main pillars of its discourse. Having those who people feel let them down in the first place tell them that the BNP is awful – full stop – will only make them more attractive.

Secondly, as mentioned by both Dutch and Danish MPs, mainstream parties should be careful not to become anti-parties themselves. Instead, they should formulate their own answers to issues shown to be important by the rise of the radical right. It is very likely that, as Guibernau argues, voters’ swing toward the far-right is largely based on the insecurities and sense of powerlessness caused by globalisation. However, voters will cast their ballot on the basis of the tangible manifestations of these transformations: their difficulty in finding employment, a growing presence of ethnic minorities in their councils, increased pressure on local services. Mainstream parties need to direct their attention to this level, and focus policies on these issues.

If the rise of the far-right is to be halted, mainstream politicians should address the problems their popularity exposes, while exposing what lies underneath their ‘airbrushed’ rhetoric.

Photo: Ross Mcross 2008