Anti-Populism, Migration And The Moral Decay of National Identity
A struggle for democratic decision making
If the mainstream, and the Political Establishment are to be believed than the main threat facing the Western World is the so-called Far Right or Right- Wing troublemakers. As a recent commentary in Politico noted: ‘Following the anti-Islam politician’s shock election win in the Netherlands, European elites are nervously scanning the political landscape for signs of what’s to come — including further surprise wins from far-right candidates’.
It appears that every time that an election does not go their way or when confronted with a display of public protest the ruling elites raise alarm about the spectre of the far-right haunting society. This panic-like response was evident in the aftermath of recent elections in Germany and Holland.
Last week it was the turn of the European People’s Party President, the German politician Manfred Weber to raise the alarm about threat posed by the far-right. He warned that the European Union must get its act together on the question of migration if it wants to avoid a far-right surge across the continent. He stated; ‘If we do not find the solution or proper common understanding how to manage migration, then I’m very worried about the next European elections’.
Weber’s statement offers a useful illustration of the working of the mindset of Europe’s mainstream political elite. As far as he is concerned the real problem facing the European Union is not so much the continent’s loss of control of mass migration but the fact that people’s anxiety regarding this development may lead to the electoral success of the far-right. What worries Weber and many of his colleagues is not mass migration as such but that many people are genuinely concerned about its impact on their everyday life. In particular, they fear that such concern amongst European people is going to lead to the electoral success of parties that they don’t like.
The recent electoral triumph of Geert Wilders’, populist PVV party in Holland has forced centrist politicians like Weber to issue warnings about the way that the migration crisis benefits right-wing movements and parties. Their warnings are always about the threat posed by the right rather than about the corrosive impact of mass migration on European societies. An editorial published by The Observer, titled ‘The Observer view on Geert Wilders’ win: far-right victory is a warning to the rest of Europe’ is paradigmatic in this respect. It states that the ‘election was no clean sweep, but it signals the perils of inaction on migration and the cost of living’. For the editors of The Observer, getting a handle on migration is necessitated because of their electoral calculations.
In the aftermath of the recent riots in Dublin numerous commentators and political figures also warned about the threat posed by the far-right. They appeared to be entirely oblivious to the impact of unprecedented level of migration on Irish communities and instead tried to blame right-wing thugs for attempting create a climate hostile to migrants. Even though concern about the anti-social behaviour of some the recently arrived migrants has been on the rise for months, the head of the Irish police stated that the violence in response to the stabbing of two young girls by a former Algerian migrant was stoked by those influenced by ‘far right ideology’. What his reaction overlooked is that immigration has become a major issue in Irish society. A recent Business Post poll that found that 75 per cent of respondents feel the country is “taking too many” newcomers, a figure that rises to 83 per cent among Sinn Fein supporters.
What is remarkable about the Irish Government’s studied indifference to the impact of migration on their fellow citizens is the fact that at present around one in five residents in Ireland were born abroad. One does not need to have a Ph.D. in the social sciences to grasp the colossal demographic shift that this development represents. Such a demographic change in the composition of Ireland’s population cannot but have an enormous cultural impact on the lives of the native population. Ireland’s Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar is clearly indifferent to the way that ordinary Irish people experience the new demographic reality. He continually celebrates the arrival of migrants and enthuses about his society’s generous welcoming ethos towards them.
The only issue of concern on Varadkar’s radar are the tiny group of right-wing protestors who rioted against his open-door policy. His focus on right wing hooligans conveniently overlooks the fact that in recent months thousands of people protested peacefully against the Government’s promotion of mass migration. And those peaceful demonstrators like anyone else who raises their voice against mass migration are demonised as far-right dregs of society. If right-wing thugs did not exist, they would be invented by elite propagandist. Indeed, in some instances the far-right thug is the product of the fantasy of elite propagandists who wish to distract attention from some of the genuine problems confronting society.
The casual application of the term far-right to any group or individual who questions the elite consensus on migration and related issues is integral to the strategy of demonising and morally disqualifying anyone who raises their voice against the status-quo. Terms like far-right and populist have been reinterpreted to mean anyone who possesses patriotic ideals or believes in traditional values or opposes the weaponization of environmental concerns or expresses anxieties about mass migration.
Historically the term far-right referred to authoritarian and militaristic movements who advocated the racial and cultural superiority of their nation. Today’s usage bears little resemblance to its classical meaning. Like its companion term populist, its sole purpose is to denigrate and isolate its targets. In effect, the classical political vocabulary has been corrupted to the point that most of its terms are becoming emptied of meaning. Consequently, even classical symbols of a nation’s identity are often denounced as a marker for xenophobia. This narrative has become integral to the conduct of elite politics to the point that many of the values that give meaning to ordinary people’s lives are dismissed with contempt by the Varadkars and Webers of this world.
One incident that strikingly illustrated the way that concern about migration is demonised occurred back in April 2010. During the British General Election campaign, the then Labour leader Gordon Brown, was overheard describing a member of the voting public, 65 year-old Gillian Duffy, as a ‘bigoted woman’. This elderly Labour Party supporter had dared challenge him over the economy and immigration. As far as Brown was concerned anyone who mentioned the word ‘immigration’ had crossed the line. That, without a moment’s hesitation, Brown dismissed the concerns of an elderly lady in such a coarse manner illustrated the casual manner with which insults like bigoted, and racist are hurled at working class people. Today Varadkar would -without giving it a second’s thought - label this lady as a right-wing xenophobe.
The language used by the mainstream political establishment to describe critics of its migration policies aims to criminalise the open airing of dissent on this subject. They are aware of the fact that the majority of people in European society is opposed to mass migration and that their policy on this subject lacks legitimacy To overcome their isolation on this subject the political elites have adopted the strategy of preventing citizens from openly voicing their views on this subject. Through demonising and even criminalising any expression of anti-migration sentiment they seek to shut down discussion on the subject. In Germany they are even discussing openly the possibility of banning the right-wing Alternative for Germany Party. In Ireland, the Government has responded to anti-migration protests by threatening to enact new hate speech laws.
Until recently the tactic of shutting down debate on the issue of migration has worked, and various governments succeeded in preventing these concerns from dominating the political agenda. Now the dam has burst and throughout the European continent citizens are demanding that migration be brought under control. Throughout the continent populist parties have been able to mobilise and give voice to the public’s concern regarding mass migration. The tactic of demonising critics of mass migration as far-right has lost much of its force. No wonder Europe’s political elites are panicking. As Politico points out, what the elites ‘ see is enough to send shivers down the spine of any EU-loving, centrist type: In nearly a dozen European countries, including France and Germany, hardline anti-immigration parties, some of them more extreme than Wilders, are currently topping the polls, or in a close second place’.
The issue of migration is not simply about the loss of control over the flow of people into Europe. It above all a question about the significance that society attaches to community, the sense of nationhood and the status of a citizen. Mass migration undermines the meaning of nationhood and the decision-making role of citizens. In practice mass migration creates the condition for the moral decay of national identity. It effectively diminishes the status of national identity. National identity has little meaning when native people find themselves strangers in their own home. The Israeli-Hamas War has served to crystallise the tension between the citizens of Europe whose loyalty is to their nation and supporters of Islamism whose attachment is to a very different way of life.
Mass migration erodes national borders and the distinction between citizens whose organic connection to a nation’s past entitles them to determine the fate of their community and those with no such connection. If the status of citizenship becomes eroded, democracy itself will be undermined. Ultimately mass migration calls into question the role of democratic decision making. That is the main reason why Europe needs to confront its crisis of mass migration.