John Bean reviews the Chatham House report Understanding and Countering Populist Extremism in Europe by Matthew Goodwin
We must first look at the political stance of the publishers, its commissioned editor (project leader), and the person who suggested the report should be produced and organised the necessary financial backing. This will give some indication of the line it takes.
Chatham House is the home of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and claims to take an independent view on policies it publishes. It emphasises this sense of humour (putting it politely) where it states: “It is precluded by its Charter from having an institutional view”.
In the preface to the 46-page report, Robert Niblett, Director of Chatham House, glows with enthusiasm over finding Matthew Goodwin “as a specialist in this area” to be project leader. Goodwin is a former Research Fellow at the Institute of Political and Economic Governance (IPEG) at the University of Manchester and an Associate Fellow at Chatham House. To quote Wikipedia: “His research focuses on far-right extremist groups”.
The birth pangs of this report began after Daniel Sachs, as Chairman of the Daniel Sachs Foundation of Stockholm contacted Robin Niblett at Chatham House in spring 2010 suggesting the report because of the rise of the ‘stop immigration’ Sweden Democrats. Daniel Sachs is CEO of ProventusAB that invests internationally in companies. He is also chairman of Swedish National Theatre, The Jewish Theatre and a film producer. He was appointed Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum in 2007.
Under ‘Acknowledgements’ Goodwin gives profuse thanks to Daniel Sachs for his initiative in suggesting and backing a report on “the rise of populist extremist parties” – PEPs.
The Supporters
Twenty-seven political parties in Europe that oppose non-European immigration are listed in the report, most in name only. In the Chapter looking at the reasons why they are gaining voters’ support it says that “PEPs are not ‘catch-all’ parties that appeal across society. Their support is anchored heavily in specific social groups. Most successful parties have rallied a coalition of economically insecure lower-middle class and skilled and unskilled manual workers”. Further on it states that some PEPs have failed and become dependent on a dwindling base of angry working class and poorly educated men.
One of the most important issues in the report is its finding that the rise of PEPs is not so much due to a feeling of economic competition from immigrants but by “feelings of cultural threat (which) are the most important driver of their support.” Their objectives include the unity of their national communities. It notes that traditional cruder forms of racial prejudice are in decline.
Another significant finding is that PEPs ‘exploit’ the growing hostility to Moslem communities throughout Europe. Overall, voters consider there are too many immigrants generally and that the established parties will do little about it. It says:
“One study examining the factors that influence public attitudes on immigration finds that concerns over cultural unity are nine times more important than crime, and five times more important than concerns about the national economy. This is much influenced by settled Muslim communities.”
It also found that PEP support is lower in areas that have large numbers of non-Muslim immigrants, such as Asians and others ( we assume by ‘others’ they mean Afro-Caribbean)
The report also finds that the Popular Extremist Parties (PEPs) are not uniform across Europe. Leaving aside standard liberal-left terminology of ‘neo-Nazi, neo-fascist’, they are divided into five ‘sub-types’: racists, ethno-centrist, fascist (mainly in Eastern Europe), populist authoritarian or religious fundamentalist.
Response to PEPs
Although it would appear that the author(s) would really like to see PEPs and even individual members excluded from the political process and public office, it admits that this can produce a backlash by reinforcing their ‘outsider’ status and “strengthen feelings of solidarity among activists”.
It think the most effective approach may be on a local level of engaging with voters and supporting interaction between different communities.
Conclusions
“Anti-Muslim sentiment has become an important driver of support for populist extremists.” The report concludes that this means appealing for immigration numbers to be reduced “is not enough”.
“PEPs are operating in a particularly favourable climate . . . (they) cannot be dismissed as those of a fringe minority”.
Encouragingly for us, it states that there is evidence that those who vote for PEPs are influencing the voting habits of their children. In France 37 per cent of support given to the long-established Front Nationale comes from those aged under 35.
The report again emphasises that the main parties efforts to stress economic contributions made by immigrants has a minor effect with voters.
“The most powerful drivers of anti-immigrant hostility are feelings of a cultural threat.”
BNP Support Falling
The report was completed well before the present British Democratic Party was formed. In regard to the BNP it says that partly because it is rooted in an overtly ‘neo-Nazi’ tradition it has failed to extend its appeal to the lower-middle classes.
Instead support fell heavily dependent on a base of ‘angry white men’: older working-class men who lack education and qualifications and are deeply pessimistic about their economic prospects.
3
If voters reject the economic contribution made by immigrants as an argument for the system then they are right.
The way things are slyly presented immigrants come to Britain and work for nothing to help us. The reality is that most take out more than they put in since they enjoy their wages and benefits as well. Only those on substantial salaries pay out more in tax than they get back from the state – especially in the longer run.
The alternative argument is provision of skills. That one falls down as well since it must mean that we are failing to train our own people and/or make use of their skills. That means our own people earn less and are being replaced at their proper skill level.
And all the above depends on an assumption that immigration does not affect employment levels among our own people. A farcical proposition even Labour now grudgingly admits to be wrong.
I think the report oversimplifies why support for the BNP has fallen. Its more complicated than that. Griffin is a big negative factor. So is the rise in support for EUKIP. Also as the BNP is seen to decline more people see it as a wasted vote, a vicious downward circle. If the BNP had a decent and competent leadership then it could pull out of the nose dive before it hits the deck but so long as Griffin stays in place it’s doomed outside of being a tiny and despised cult.
Excellent article. One can never forget that Chatham House/RIIA was established in the early 20th century as a sort of globalist think tank and its founders included academics like Professor Arnold Toynbee. I think it was around 1931 that he wrote in a Chatham House publication ‘International Affairs’ about how he and his fellow ‘one worlder’ travellers were busily engaged in the dismantling of national sovereignty in the nation states of the world. In the execution of this ‘agenda’ (and we can see so clearly how it is panning out) Toynbee brazenly said; “…and all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands”. The USA based ‘sister’ organisation of Chatham House is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Again, it is globalist in outlook and has a massive influence on the USA body politik.
They obviously rely on stereotypes, ‘uneducated white working class’, etc., for their theories. They sit there, in their ivory towers, not really having a clue about ‘ordinary people’ who they despise.
One day they may wake up to find that all was not as they supposed.
I for one do not tick any of their boxes.
Apart from the obvious that the BNP’s own chairman was mainly responsible for the decline of the BNP.
The other factor for the failure of the BNP was they never attracted any significant support from the middle classes or if you like the educated classes.
The middle class make up a huge chunk of the electorate but the BNP never seemed interested in their support.
Without a lot of their support no nationalist party is going any where.
Given the never ending scandals within the BNP concerning people who Griffin had appointed, the chance of any large scale support from the middle classes was nil.
Yes, too true John, but Griffin didn’t want educated people – people who would either see what he was up to or become future leader material. He wanted yes men ad thickos – preferably ones with deep pockets. Come to think of it – he still does (that and legacies),
The “middle classes” are in my opinion a section in society who are reasonably happy with their lot, in denial of there once working class roots, smug and above all extremely self centered. They truly believe that because they have been fortunate enough to “white flight” they will somehow be spared the horrors of this failed multi-cultural nightmare. Sadly for them history proves that “you can run but you cannot hide”.
Don’t worry about academics like Matthew Goodwin, they live in a world of their own far removed from reality. The worldwide economic recession will exacerbate the social and political problems caused by Third World immigration into Europe and North America. Just look how the established parties are reacting to the threat of Ukip. Times are changing.