![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article presents a comparative analysis of how European democracies address the paradox of tolerance. States have formulated various responses to political radicalism, in particular right-wing radicalism. Scholars have explained these variations by the differences in their authoritarian pasts. However, a wide array of policy actors with different perceptions and interests are involved in the regulation of right-wing radicalism. Their impact on implemented policy measures needs to be assessed to better understand what drives the politics of democratic defense in liberal democracies. Relying on grey literature, administrative reports and semi-structured interviews conducted between 2013 and 2017 in France and Germany among a range of policy actors responding to right-wing radicalism, I identify two key factors to explain the regulation of right-wing radicalism. This article demonstrates that the historical framing of right-wing radicalism and the national specificities in policymaking need to be explored if we are to understand the regulation dynamics of right-wing radicalism. By contrast, the radical right’s structure is of secondary importance in explaining how liberal democracies address the paradox of tolerance. These results advocate for the systematic use of policy tools in analyzing the politics of democratic defense.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. Preventive responses include information campaigns, political education, de-radicalization stations, programs counselling victims of right-wing violence, or youth work.
2. When italicized, « extremism » or « extremist » refer to the notion developed by German authorities.
3. Left-wing radical activists were more affected by this policy than activists with a right-wing background (see Rigoll Citation2013).
4. Policy frames can be defined as the process of ‘selecting, organizing, interpreting, and making sense of a complex reality so as to provide guideposts for knowing, analyzing, persuading and acting’ (Rein and Schön Citation1991, 263).
5. A few interviews were conducted in two other Länder, see .
6. Yet, the diversification of measures against right-wing radicalism was unevenly distributed – some states such as Brandenburg reacted quickly (Rensmann, Kopke, and Botsch Citation2015). In contrast, neighboring Saxony, which has been dominated by the conservative aisle of the CDU since reunification, has adopted an appeasement strategy towards the far right (Virchow Citation2016).
7. A respondent from the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs underlines that under the political mandate of Kristina Schröder (CDU), the relations between civil society organizations and the ministry deteriorated as she introduced regulations forcing federally funded organizations to sign a statement in which they swore allegiance to the German constitution (Interview 2015). Other respondents, from an antifascist NGO which refused to sign the statement, explained that they chose to give up on federal funds (Interview 2015).
8. All interview excerpts in this article are free translations (German>English) (French>English).
9. Another respondent from an NGO active in intercultural education and violence prevention similarly stated that knowledge produced by NGOs developing programs against right-wing radicalism is now valued by state authorities. To illustrate his statement, he mentions the recruitment of the former president of a leading NGO active against right-wing radicalism to manage the federal fund for the protection of democracy (Interview 2015).
10. Available online at https://www.gdp.de/gdp/gdp.nsf/id/DE_GdP-bedauert-Urteil-des-Bundesgerichtshofs-zu-Kuttentrageverbot (accessed 10 October 2021).
11. Negotiated agreements can be defined as a cooperative game where ‘rational actors will lead to voluntary agreements that will realize all potential welfare gains among the participants, provided that transaction costs are negligible, and that side payments or package deals are possible’ (Scharpf Citation1997, 116).
12. The issue was discussed twice during the municipal council meeting illustrating the politicization of the issue. Available online at http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2007/01/06/le-conseil-d-etat-refuse-la-distribution-a-paris-de-la-soupe-au-cochon_852556_3224.html (accessed 10 October 2021).