In coalition politics, history has repeatedly underscored the many reasons for centrist parties to steer clear of affiliations with extremist counterparts. However, the European political landscape is experiencing a surge in the popularity of extremist movements on both ends of the spectrum. While the traditional playbook may advocate avoidance, the rise of these movements often makes it impossible to disregard them when it comes to coalition forming.
All ideological considerations aside, what implications does this have for your party? What pitfalls are associated with it, and are there perhaps any compelling reasons to contemplate participating in such coalitions?
By looking at past examples as well as the data, we can draw some conclusions: here are three reasons why parties should consider collaborating with extremist parties and three reasons why they should not.
Reasons to consider collaboration with extremist parties
Governing causes a taming effect
Governing induces moderation. This phenomenon is evident on both ends of the political spectrum. Take, for example, the Left in Thuringia, where Bodo Ramelow serves as Minister-President. In contrast to the Left in other parts of Germany, Ramelow is generally perceived as pragmatic, showcasing the impact of governance on ideological stance.
A similar pattern is observable with the FPÖ in Austria. A comparison of their behaviour during their last two stints in government versus their time in opposition reveals a significant shift towards more moderate positions when in power. Additionally, participating in government tends to elevate and support the more moderate voices within the party, contributing further to ideological moderation.
The same could be said of the radical left Syriza party in Greece, which implemented austerity imposed by the Troika of international lenders despite staging (and winning) a referendum against the programme.
Stoping them from blaming everything on the government
Populist parties often flourish in opposition, leveraging anti-establishment sentiments as a core aspect of their agenda. Integrating them into the government proves to be the most straightforward and effective means of curbing their inclination to lay blame solely on the government. By necessitating a justification for their decision to join a coalition, these parties are compelled to lend a degree of support to their partners’ actions and actively engage in constructive governance.
Winning back voters by restoring trust in the system
Since many extreme parties thrive on an anti-establishment narrative, outright exclusion tends to perpetuate this narrative. Voters who may have distanced themselves from centrist parties due to perceived neglect of crucial issues may be inclined to return once they observe that mainstream parties are not categorically dismissing extremist counterparts.
This dynamic is particularly evident in discussions surrounding migration, where the entire European Union is shifting towards more restrictive policies.
An illustrative case of this strategy working to a certain extent can be seen in the 2016 involvement of the True Finns in the Finnish government which was largely perceived as an effort to minimise the threat posed by the party.
Reasons to be cautious about collaboration
Coalitions that include extremists are often short-lived and prone to instability. Historical evidence suggests that governments involving extremist factions are not as enduring as those formed with established parties. Both the above-mentioned FPÖ and True Finns experienced premature collapses during their last involvement in government, failing to complete a full term.
Several factors contribute to this trend. One significant aspect is that extremist parties typically lack experience in governance, which becomes particularly evident in the shortage of qualified personnel.
Another contributing factor to the premature collapse of governments involving extremist forces is that coalitions with homogeneous policy agendas tend to have longer-lasting stability compared to those with highly heterogeneous ones.
Normalising extremist position
One frequently raised concern is that while being open to collaborating with extremist forces may help restore trust in the government among certain groups, it also has the potential to normalise extreme positions and render them more acceptable to voters who were previously aligned with centrist ideologies. This phenomenon is often explained through the concept of the Overton Window, which suggests that the range of acceptable public discourse shifts based on what ideas are considered mainstream or permissible at a given time. Collaborating with extremists may contribute to a widening or shift of this window, making previously extreme positions more viable and acceptable within the political landscape. The increased legitimacy associated with involvement in a government further facilitates this shift.
Public and international perception
While the days when the involvement of a far-right party resulted in EU sanctions (as member states did by ostracising Austria in 2000) are in the past, the engagement of extremist parties still prompts a degree of isolation within the European community.
Moreover, the significance of public perception cannot be overstated. Recent protests in France, Austria, Poland, and, most notably, Germany underscore the substantial public opposition against far-right parties in particular.
This indicates that collaborating with these parties could significantly damage the reputation of centrist parties, erode their trustworthiness, and ultimately deter long-term voters.
Future challenges: centrist parties at a crossroads
Up until now, the process of extremists’ participation in government has usually been led by larger mainstream parties, generally inviting the smaller extremist parties to become junior partners in form a coalition.
As the most recent examples in Italy or the Netherlands show, this dynamic could be about to shift. Polls for upcoming German state elections as well as for the Austrian general elections putsee extremist parties and candidates in the lead.
If that were to really happen, the question that parties in the centre would face is whether they should overcome their reservations and govern as junior partners in a coalition they might not be comfortable with, or leave the field entirely to the extreme forces. The answer to this question will likely have to be made on a case-by-case basis and after very careful consideration.
