Context & Background: The Echoes of Migration and Shifting European Politics

The current surge in right-wing populism in Europe cannot be understood without acknowledging the pivotal role of the 2015 refugee crisis. In 2015, an unprecedented number of migrants and asylum seekers arrived in Europe, with countries like Germany and Sweden opening their doors to a substantial portion of them. Germany, under Chancellor Angela Merkel, initially adopted a welcoming stance, a policy that significantly altered the demographic and social fabric of the nation. Sweden, too, implemented an open-door policy, admitting a large number of migrants relative to its population. This period saw hundreds of thousands arriving in each country, leading to widespread discussions and, in many cases, anxieties about integration, social services, and national identity.

The political ramifications of this migration wave were profound. Established centrist parties, often seen as responsible for managing the crisis, faced criticism for perceived inadequacies or for policies that were not aligned with the concerns of a segment of the electorate. This created fertile ground for parties offering alternative narratives, often emphasizing stricter border controls, national sovereignty, and a more critical stance towards multiculturalism and immigration. The elections in Austria, where Sebastian Kurz, campaigning on an anti-immigration platform, was elected Chancellor, forming a government that included the far-right Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), underscored this continental shift. The FPÖ, with roots in a party founded in the 1950s by former Nazis, represents a historical thread of right-wing nationalism that has re-emerged in contemporary European politics.

In Germany, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party experienced a significant breakthrough in the 2017 federal elections, entering the Bundestag for the first time with 13% of the vote. This electoral success represented a considerable challenge to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s long-standing leadership and her party’s, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), traditional dominance. The AfD’s platform is largely centered on opposing immigration, criticizing Islam, and advocating for a more nationalistic approach to German policy. Their rise signaled a departure from Germany’s post-war consensus on openness and integration, reflecting a growing segment of the population that felt their concerns about immigration had been unaddressed.

Sweden, often perceived as a bastion of liberal and humanitarian policies, also witnessed a notable challenge from the right. The Sweden Democrats (SD), a party with historical ties to neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideologies, have steadily gained support over the years. Their platform similarly focuses on restrictive immigration policies, national identity, and a critique of what they describe as the failures of mainstream multiculturalism. The Nordic Resistance Movement (NRM), a more overtly neo-Nazi group, also staged demonstrations, highlighting a spectrum of far-right activism in the country. While the NRM may not represent the mainstream electorate, their presence and rhetoric reflect a more extreme manifestation of the sentiments being tapped into by more established right-wing parties.

The narrative surrounding these movements often links their growth directly to the migrant influx. Supporters and the parties themselves frequently articulate concerns about national identity, cultural preservation, and the strain on social welfare systems. Critics, however, point to the divisive rhetoric, the historical baggage of some of these groups, and the potential for xenophobia and discrimination inherent in their platforms.

The events in these three countries serve as a microcosm of broader trends across Europe, where immigration and national identity have become central themes in political discourse. Understanding this context is crucial for grasping the motivations of voters and the strategies of the parties involved, as well as the profound implications for the future of European integration and social cohesion.

In-Depth Analysis: Ideologies, Recruitment, and Societal Impact

The rise of far-right and right-wing populist parties in Sweden and Germany is fueled by a complex interplay of ideology, socio-economic factors, and a perceived disconnect between governing elites and segments of the population. At the core of these movements is a strong emphasis on nationalism, often coupled with a critical stance towards globalization, international institutions, and liberal social policies.

Sweden: The Nordic Resistance Movement and the Sweden Democrats

In Sweden, the Nordic Resistance Movement (NRM), as depicted in the PBS NewsHour report, represents a more extreme end of the far-right spectrum. Their ideology, as voiced by supporters like Paulina Forslund, centers on a narrative of ethnic preservation and a fear of demographic change. Forslund’s statement, “When white becomes the minority, they will be destroyed,” encapsulates a core tenet of this worldview: the belief that demographic shifts pose an existential threat to the “white race” and its culture. This is further articulated in her use of terms like “imported scum” to refer to migrants, revealing a dehumanizing language that aims to justify exclusion and hostility. The NRM’s ideology is explicitly neo-Nazi, a term the movement’s members often distance themselves from publicly, with some, like “Damon,” preferring the label “national socialist,” a historical echo of Hitler’s party. This semantic evasion highlights a strategic attempt to rebrand or soften the explicit Nazi association while retaining the underlying ideological framework.

The NRM’s actions, including their organized marches and confrontational stances against counter-protesters and police, underscore a strategy of visibility and provocation. Their demonstration on Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement, is particularly symbolic, resonating with the historical persecution of Jewish people by Nazis. Allan Stutzinky, leader of Gothenburg’s Jewish community, directly links this to a resurgence of Nazism, noting the “same flags, shouting the same slogans, and have the same racist agenda.” This connection to historical antisemitism and the Holocaust is a recurring theme in discussions about these groups and is a source of deep concern for minority communities and those who remember Europe’s past.

While the NRM is a fringe group, its existence and activities are seen by experts, and many citizens like anti-Nazi protester Johanna, as emblematic of a broader rise in far-right sentiment. Johanna’s declaration, “They are racist people… I will not stand for that. It’s not something I think has a place in a modern society,” reflects a strong counter-movement rooted in opposition to racism and the defense of inclusive societal values.

The more mainstream right-wing party in Sweden, the Sweden Democrats (SD), though not explicitly detailed in the PBS report as being the focus of the NRM march, has seen significant gains. Their success is attributed to a platform that, while often more polished than that of the NRM, also taps into anxieties about immigration, integration, and national identity. Anna Johansson, a member of the governing Social Democratic Party, expresses concern about the “hatred is spreading” and the growing strength of “extreme parties” in Sweden and other countries. Her party’s consideration of outlawing the NRM indicates a recognition of the threat posed by overtly extremist groups, but also raises questions about the balance between freedom of association and the need to protect democratic values.

The sentiments of individuals like Floid Gumbo, a singer originally from Zimbabwe who has lived in Sweden for over 20 years, provide a poignant perspective on the changing social climate. He recalls a Sweden that was “so friendly, and things were completely different, more welcoming” and expresses deep concern for his children’s future, fearing that the “climate, atmosphere that they are going to experience here” will not be the same as his own experience. This speaks to a perceived erosion of social tolerance and a growing sense of unease among immigrant communities and those who support multiculturalism.

Germany: The Alternative for Germany (AfD) and Societal Divisions

In Germany, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) has emerged as a significant political force, entering the Bundestag with 13% of the vote in 2017. Hugh Bronson, the AfD’s deputy leader in Berlin, frames the party’s existence as a response to Chancellor Merkel’s policies, particularly her handling of the 2015 migrant crisis. He argues that the AfD “only came into existence because Merkel deserted the traditional conservative Christian voters” and that the party offers a “safe place” for those voters. This framing suggests that the AfD is presenting itself as a voice for disaffected mainstream conservatives who feel their concerns have been ignored.

When challenged about claims that the AfD is a “party of hate,” Bronson responds by articulating a selective form of acceptance: “We embrace foreigners who respect our laws, pay their taxes, send their children to school, and go about their normal life.” He contrasts this with “people who abuse the system… or who are criminals.” This distinction, while seemingly pragmatic, is often criticized for its implication that a significant portion of migrants do not meet these criteria, thereby fueling negative stereotypes and contributing to an anti-immigrant narrative. The language used by the AfD, while often more measured than that of groups like the NRM, still operates within a framework that frames immigration as a problem requiring stringent control and potentially reversal.

The city of Dresden, mentioned in the report, is presented as a focal point for anti-immigrant sentiment in Germany and the birthplace of a pan-European anti-Islamic movement. This geographic context is significant, as Dresden and the former East Germany have shown particular receptivity to right-wing populist parties. Wilfried Schmidt, a retired engineer, articulates a perspective commonly found in these regions: “Germany is undergoing social changes that are becoming harder to control. For one, there is mass immigration from difficult regions that is increasingly uncontrollable, of people with entirely different concepts of life, from fundamental differently structured societies that are problematic.” This statement reflects a common concern about the scale and perceived uncontrollability of immigration, coupled with anxieties about cultural and societal differences. The language of “uncontrollable” and “problematic” societies suggests a perception of threat and a desire for a return to a perceived earlier, more homogeneous state.

Luca Bergelt, a singer from Dresden, voices a broader European fear: “My fear is that they will tear Europe apart. They are going to raise up the walls again. They’re going to build new walls between the countries, and that Europe will get more close into itself.” This sentiment speaks to the potential fragmentation of the European project, a concern shared by many who see right-wing nationalism as a threat to the continent’s post-war commitment to integration and cooperation.

Chancellor Merkel’s response to the rise of the AfD and the public sentiment it represents has been a delicate balancing act. While she has promised to “listen to the people who voted for the AFD” and win them over with “good politics,” she has also refused to countenance having the AfD in her coalition. Her government has agreed to a compromise by putting an annual cap of 200,000 on the number of immigrants, a policy she had previously resisted. Political scientist Werner Patzelt suggests that Merkel might attempt further “U-turns” to regain voters, but notes the deep disappointment many AfD voters feel towards the CDU and Merkel herself, making their return to the party a difficult prospect.

The underlying issue for many voters appears to be a sense of lost control and a desire for a perceived return to a more stable or familiar national identity, exacerbated by rapid demographic changes linked to immigration. The response from established parties, such as the governing Social Democrats in Sweden considering outlawing the NRM and Merkel’s concessions on immigration caps, indicates an effort to contain the growth of the far-right by addressing some of the concerns being voiced, albeit with the risk of legitimizing or normalizing the discourse of these parties, as Anna Johansson warns: “Experience shows that, when you adopt the ideas from these right-wing parties, they spread.”

The contrasting views presented – from the explicit racism of the NRM to the more politically packaged arguments of the AfD, and the concerns of individuals like Floid Gumbo and Luca Bergelt – illustrate the deeply polarized and emotionally charged nature of this debate. The challenge for European societies lies in navigating these complex issues while upholding democratic values and protecting the rights of all citizens.

Pros and Cons: Examining the Arguments

The rise of far-right and right-wing populist parties is a multifaceted phenomenon, eliciting strong reactions and arguments from various perspectives. Examining the stated aims and observed impacts of these movements allows for a more nuanced understanding of their role in contemporary European politics.

Arguments in Favor (as articulated by supporters and parties)

• National Sovereignty and Border Control: Proponents argue that stricter immigration policies and border controls are essential for maintaining national sovereignty, protecting domestic jobs, and preserving cultural identity. They often emphasize the need for nations to control who enters their borders, citing security concerns and the perceived strain on public services and social cohesion.
• Critique of Globalization and Elites: Many right-wing populist movements position themselves as the voice of the “silent majority” or “forgotten people” who feel marginalized by globalist elites and mainstream political parties. They advocate for policies that prioritize national interests over international agreements and express skepticism towards supranational organizations like the European Union.
• Emphasis on National Culture and Identity: A core argument is the need to preserve and promote national culture, traditions, and values, which they believe are threatened by mass immigration and multiculturalism. They often advocate for assimilationist policies rather than multicultural integration.
• Law and Order: Concerns about crime and public safety are frequently highlighted, with claims that immigration contributes to increased crime rates. These parties often promise tougher stances on law enforcement and stricter penalties for offenders.
• Economic Protectionism: Some elements within these movements advocate for economic policies that prioritize domestic industries and workers, often through protectionist measures, to counter the perceived negative impacts of globalization and free trade agreements.

Arguments Against (as articulated by critics and opponents)

• Xenophobia and Discrimination: Critics contend that the rhetoric and policies of many far-right groups are rooted in xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia. They argue that these movements create divisions within society, scapegoat minority groups, and foster an atmosphere of intolerance.
• Erosion of Democratic Values: Concerns are raised that the nationalist and sometimes authoritarian tendencies of these parties can undermine democratic institutions, freedom of speech, and the rule of law. The historical associations of some groups with totalitarian ideologies are a significant point of criticism.
• Economic Detriment: Critics argue that protectionist policies and isolationist approaches can harm international trade, lead to economic stagnation, and alienate trading partners. They also point to the economic contributions of immigrants.
• Humanitarian Concerns: The emphasis on strict immigration controls and deportations is seen by many as a violation of humanitarian principles and international obligations to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution.
• Historical Revisionism and Disinformation: Some groups are accused of downplaying or distorting historical events, particularly related to the Holocaust and the Nazi era, in an effort to legitimize their contemporary ideologies. The use of misinformation and emotionally charged rhetoric to bypass reasoned debate is also a concern.
• Social Division and Destabilization: By promoting an “us versus them” mentality, these parties can exacerbate social tensions, alienate communities, and destabilize societies, hindering integration and fostering an environment of fear and mistrust.

It is important to note that within the broad category of “far-right” or “right-wing populist,” there can be variations in ideology and emphasis. However, the core debates often revolve around immigration, national identity, and the role of the state versus global forces.

Key Takeaways

• European politics has seen a noticeable shift towards the right, with countries like Austria, Germany, and Sweden experiencing the rise of parties with anti-immigration platforms and nationalist sentiments.
• The 2015 migrant influx is frequently cited as a significant catalyst for this political realignment, with many voters expressing concerns about integration, national identity, and the capacity of governments to manage migration.
• In Sweden, groups like the Nordic Resistance Movement (NRM) represent more extreme, neo-Nazi ideologies focused on racial preservation, while more established parties like the Sweden Democrats have gained significant electoral ground with similar, though often more subtly articulated, concerns about immigration.
• Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has become a major political force, challenging established parties by positioning itself as a voice for those who feel their concerns about immigration and national identity have been ignored.
• Supporters of these movements often emphasize national sovereignty, cultural preservation, and a critique of globalism and liberal elites.
• Critics raise concerns about xenophobia, discrimination, the erosion of democratic values, and the potential for these movements to foster social division and historical revisionism.
• Political leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel are grappling with these shifts, making policy concessions on immigration while seeking to avoid direct coalition with far-right parties.
• The debate is highly polarized, with starkly different views on the nature of immigration’s impact and the best path forward for European societies.

Future Outlook: Navigating a Polarized Continent

The trajectory of far-right and right-wing populist movements in Europe remains a subject of intense scrutiny and debate. Several factors suggest that these forces will continue to exert significant influence on the political landscape, presenting ongoing challenges for established political parties and societal cohesion.

The underlying issues that have propelled these movements—including economic anxieties, concerns about national identity in the face of globalization and demographic change, and a distrust of political elites—are unlikely to dissipate quickly. As long as these sentiments resonate with a substantial portion of the electorate, right-wing populist parties will likely retain a strong presence in many European parliaments.

One key question is the extent to which mainstream parties will continue to adapt their policies and rhetoric in response to the challenges posed by the far-right. As seen with Chancellor Merkel’s concessions on immigration caps in Germany, there is a tendency for established parties to co-opt or address some of the concerns voiced by populist movements in an effort to win back voters. However, as Swedish politician Anna Johansson warned, this can lead to the “spread” of far-right ideas, potentially normalizing them and making it harder to isolate extremist elements.

The European Union itself faces a period of potential strain. The emphasis on national sovereignty and skepticism towards supranational cooperation inherent in many right-wing populist platforms could challenge the future of integration. Debates over border controls, fiscal policies, and shared values are likely to intensify, potentially leading to greater fragmentation within the EU.

The role of social media and digital communication will also remain critical. These platforms have proven effective in disseminating the messages of populist movements, often bypassing traditional media gatekeepers and allowing for direct engagement with supporters. The ability of these movements to mobilize online communities and influence public discourse through targeted campaigns is a significant factor in their sustained influence.

Furthermore, the ongoing management of migration and integration policies will continue to be a central battleground. Any future large-scale influx of migrants or perceived failures in integration efforts could further embolden right-wing populist narratives. Conversely, successful integration models and policies that effectively address public concerns could potentially mitigate the appeal of these movements.

The sustainability of these movements also depends on their ability to move beyond protest politics and demonstrate effective governance. If mainstream parties successfully address the root causes of discontent or if the far-right fails to offer viable solutions to complex societal problems, their long-term influence might be curtailed. However, the current political climate suggests a prolonged period of adjustment and polarization across the continent.

Ultimately, the future outlook involves a delicate balancing act: addressing legitimate public concerns about security, identity, and governance without succumbing to xenophobic or divisive ideologies. The ability of European societies to foster inclusive dialogue, strengthen democratic institutions, and manage societal changes will be crucial in shaping the continent’s political future.

Call to Action

The complex political shifts and societal debates surrounding the rise of the far-right in Europe call for informed engagement and a commitment to upholding democratic principles. Understanding the nuances of these movements, the concerns they articulate, and the criticisms leveled against them is essential for navigating this challenging period.

For citizens:

• Stay informed: Seek out diverse sources of information and critically evaluate claims, especially those that evoke strong emotional responses or present simplistic solutions to complex problems. Utilize official sources and reputable journalistic outlets to understand the factual basis of political discourse.
• Engage in respectful dialogue: Participate in conversations about immigration, national identity, and social cohesion, aiming to understand different perspectives while firmly rejecting prejudice and discrimination.
• Support inclusive initiatives: Engage with or support organizations working to promote integration, combat xenophobia, and uphold human rights.
• Hold leaders accountable: Advocate for policies that are evidence-based, promote social inclusion, and safeguard democratic values.

For policymakers and institutions:

• Address root causes of discontent: Implement policies that tackle economic inequality, provide opportunities for all citizens, and foster a sense of shared belonging.
• Promote effective integration: Invest in language programs, education, and community-building initiatives to facilitate the successful integration of migrants and refugees.
• Counter disinformation: Support media literacy initiatives and work to combat the spread of false and misleading information that fuels polarization.
• Uphold democratic norms: Ensure that political discourse remains civil and respectful, and take measures to protect democratic institutions from undue influence or subversion.

By fostering informed public discourse, promoting inclusive policies, and actively defending democratic values, European societies can work towards a future where diversity is a source of strength and where all individuals can live with dignity and security.

Official References and Further Reading:

• PBS NewsHour: The original source for this report provides extensive coverage of international affairs. For similar reports and analysis on European politics, visit: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/
• European Parliament: Information on EU policies, debates, and legislation related to migration, integration, and fundamental rights can be found on the official European Parliament website: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/topic/home
• The German Federal Foreign Office: Offers insights into Germany’s foreign policy, including its stance on migration and European cooperation: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/
• The Swedish Government: Provides official information on Swedish policies, including those related to immigration and integration: https://www.government.se/english/
• Academic Research on Populism and Migration: Numerous academic institutions and think tanks produce research on these topics. Examples include the European University Institute (EUI), the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), and the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin).