‘Barbieland’ and the rise of the far-right in Europe

The FPÖ was founded by a group of Nazis after World War II. It has previously held power as a junior partner in short-lived coalition governments with the centre-right Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) in 2000 and 2017.  Its leader, Herbert Kickl, has been branded as “Volkskanzler” or “people’s chancellor,” by his party, a term the Nazis used to describe Hitler. Kickl ran an anti-foreigner campaign, vowing to erect a “Fortress Austria” to keep out migrants. 2024 marked the first time the party has finished first in a national election.

A ‘paranoid tabloid agenda’

The result is part of a broader surge of far-right populism across Europe, where nationalist Eurosceptic parties are gaining ground. Like other European countries experiencing a rise in far-right influence, Austria’s political discourse has become increasingly toxic.

As reported by Social Europe, a “paranoid tabloid agenda” dominates the media, with immigration, security, and crime consistently grabbing headlines. The coverage often portrays immigration and violence as interchangeable, advancing what Social Europe describes as a “paranoid mindset” entrenched in Austrian political culture.

Austria’s shift to the far-right mirrors a similar trend in Germany. In September, the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) celebrated a “historic success,” winning a significant victory in the eastern state of Thuringia. The AfD secured nearly a third of the vote, placing them nine points ahead of the conservative CDU and far ahead of Germany’s three governing parties. The party also came a close second in two other states, Saxony and Brandenburg. This marked the far-right’s first win in a state parliament election since World War II, though the AfD has little chance of forming a government in Thuringia, as other parties are unlikely to collaborate with them.

The outcomes in Austria and Germany cap off a year of far-right gains across Europe. In September 2023, Robert Fico, known for his opposition to Brussels, won Slovakia’s elections and quickly formed a government. A few months later, Geert Wilders, the anti-Islam leader of the Freedom Party (PVV), topped the polls in the Netherlands. His party later formed a cabinet that pledged to implement the country’s toughest-ever policies on law, order, and immigration.

In May, France’s President Emmanuel Macron suffered a humiliating defeat, when Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally (RN) achieved its best-ever result in the European parliament. The result prompted Macron to dissolve the French parliament.

How the far-right wins will affect the policies of the EU

The pressing question is of course, how will gains by the far right effect the European Parliament and the EU. For some thinkers, the growing influence of far-right parties in the 2024 European Parliament elections will have notable implications for EU policies. In a report on the European elections by the independent policy institute Chatham House, the authors argue that while far-right parties made gains, especially in Italy, France, and Germany, their ability to affect real change depends on how unified they can be, as they remain divided on key issues like Ukraine and fiscal policies. Nevertheless, their increased presence will influence several policy areas, including migration, climate, EU powers and integration, and foreign policy and defense. 

‘Barbieland’ and the EU’s ‘blind spots’

In its report, Welcome to Barbieland: European sentiment in the year of wars and elections, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) uses Barbie as an analogy for Europe’s current political climate. In the film, Barbie discovers that her self-perception is at odds with the real world, where her role as a feminist icon is criticised. Barbie realises that Barbieland is not the paradise she once believed it to be.

The ECFR draws parallels between Barbie’s “dystopia” and the “blind spots” of European leaders, which reveal a gap between the EU’s Enlightenment ideals and its political realities. These blind spots, the report warns, could ultimately weaken the foundations of democracy within the EU.

One of the blind spots identified in the report is the EU’s ‘whiteness’.’ It singles out the lack of diversity on candidate lists for the European Parliament, with less than 20 non-white candidates ultimately being elected in June’s European elections. 

“Not only did the candidate lists in the European Parliament election fail to reflect the diverse character of European society, but anti-immigration discourse also flourished in the campaigns in most member states. 

“For many non-white or Muslim Europeans, this would have exacerbated existing worries, including about discrimination after Hamas’s attack on Israel in October 2023,” reads the report.

This suggests that as a result, non-white Europeans or those from migrant backgrounds may have felt disconnected from the democratic process.

Central and Eastern Europe

Another ‘blind spot’ identified in the ‘Barbieland’ model is a subdued pro-European sentiment in central and Eastern Europe, which may reflect a re-evaluation of what it means to be European. The report notes how this region witnessed a low turnout for the European Parliament election, the normalised presence of Eurosceptic parties and attitudes, and low-key celebrations of the 20th anniversary of joining the bloc.

The ECFR links this lack of enthusiasm to a spike in Eurosceptic attitudes, which far-right parties seize upon.

“Rather than pointing to these countries’ sense of marginalisation, this evolution of European sentiment may – to the contrary – reflect a newly acquired self-confidence. This, in turn, is underpinned by a vision of Europe that differs from that of the EU in its current guise,” states the report.

A disconnected youth

A third area of concern identified in the report is a disconnection among young people, with 18 – 29-year-olds being underrepresented in voter turnout in recent elections. While young people are believed to be more pro-European and socially tolerant than older generations, many young Europeans did not turn out to vote in the European elections – and, when they did, they often opted for far-right or anti-establishment alternatives.

“The question here is whether increasingly normalised xenophobia in the EU is not driving some young people away from the European project, while at the same time habituating others to an ‘ethnic’ conception of Europeanness – and thus easing their path towards supporting the far-right.”

The authors urge pro-Europeans to acknowledge these blind spots, give a voice to underrepresented groups, and reverse the drift towards an ‘ethnic’ conception of Europeanness by “reconstructing a ‘civic’ offer that upholds the foundational values of the EU.”  They argue that many pro-European politicians are only paying ‘lip service’ to the EU’s foundational values of universalism, equality, and secularism. At the same time, they are presenting immigration from Africa and Asia as a threat to European “civilisation”, or the Muslim population as a security risk for Europe.

The report notes how some European leaders may have concluded that cultivating this contradiction is the only way to win re-election. Creating stricter migration management rules which formed part of the EU’s pact on migration and asylum may be seen by the European mainstream to neutralise the far-right. But the authors warn that this is dangerous, as in several member states, especially in central and Eastern Europe, xenophobic discourse has encountered barely any resistance from politicians, the media, and intellectual elites.

“This contributes to its normalisation. And young generations are growing up witnessing all this, potentially leading to disillusionment with the EU for some or affiliation with the far-right for others.”

The ECFR is urging pro-Europeans to resist the short-term electoral or strategic temptation of staying quiet about the ‘ethnic’ conception of Europeanness, and instead unambiguously oppose and reject it.

“Responsible politicians should be able to call xenophobia by its name and explain to the public that certain opinions that they share or tolerate run contrary to their own interests.”

Which of course, is easier to say than realise politically faced with a toxic legacy and social media with vested ideological and economic interests in promoting dystopia.

Looking to Switzerland

However, there are grounds for hope too which sometimes lies with the complex nature of democracy. Take Switzerland for example, where xenophobia found an early home. The surge in right-wing populists in Europe has been pinned on the mirroring of the successful models of their sister parties, notably the Swiss People’s Party (SVP). Since 1999, the SVP, which in 2023 campaigned against mass migration and “woke madness,” has received between 22 percent and 29 percent of the vote in national elections.

However, due to Switzerland’s unique federal system, the party’s influence has been limited, though its persistence remains concerning.

Itziar Marañón of Campax, Switzerland’s largest citizen movement advocating for social and environmental issues, notes how right-wing populist parties across Europe are networking and learning from each other’s successes. But despite the increasing normalisation of these movements, Marañón notes that around 70 percent of voters across Europe still oppose the far-right.

Britain bucks the trend?

Closer to home, the UK presents an interesting case. When Britain voted to leave the EU in 2016, far-right politicians in Europe hailed it a victory for their own anti-immigration and anti-EU positions. But eight years later, and the UK has taken a leftward turn, with Labour’s landslide victory in July offering renewed hope for progressives. But beneath this surface lies a troubling undercurrent of far-right sentiment. Nigel Farage’s Reform Party secured 14 percent of the vote nationally, just behind the 16 percent won by Germany’s far-right AfD in the European Parliament elections. While the AfD is sending a sizable contingent of MEPs to Brussels, a bit like the Swiss voting model, the UK’s first-past-the-post electoral system limited Reform’s parliamentary representation to just five seats, despite receiving over 4 million votes.

As Marta Lorimer, a politics lecturer at Cardiff University, observes: “If the UK had a different [polling] system, we would be seeing a level of fragmentation similar to other places in Europe. Some tendencies are just masked by the way the electoral system works.”

The UK may no longer be in Europe, but what is happening in the bloc presents a lesson for progressive politicians everywhere. As nationalist movements gain ground across Europe, it’s clear that progressive leaders must confront these challenges head-on. Keir Starmer’s recent rise in the UK offers hope for progressives, and he is certainly trying to walk an interesting line on immigration which stops well short of condemning anti-immigrant sentiments as racist but looks to manage numbers by liaising with European governments and improving the processing system. At the same time, he is trying to distinguish between ‘good immigrants’ (economic contributors) and ‘bad immigrants’ (mostly those entering illegally). It is all hugely problematic and risks offending humanitarians who see immigration in terms of a fundamental human need while failing to satisfy those who simply reject the whole idea of legitimate immigration.

The Spanish government is taking a much braver line in making it easier for people to settle in Spain on the grounds that they will contribute to the prosperity of the nation. No doubt other European leaders will be following the fortunes of Starmer and the Spanish prime minister Pedro Sanchez with interest. One thing is clear though: to maintain the democratic values that the EU was built on, leaders like Starmer must reject the normalisation of xenophobia and work towards a more inclusive and unified society.

Right-wing media watch – Loony Mail flits from Chagos to Falklands

“Hands off our Falklands,” read the Mail’s frontpage headline on October 5. The article claims that Argentina has vowed to make a fresh grab for the Falklands following “Labour’s surrender of the Chagos Islands.”

The piece followed a similarly dramatic frontpage headline the previous day. “Starmer’s Surrender,” criticised the PM’s decision to hand over sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius, a country the article pointedly notes is an ally of China. The Mail provocatively suggested this move could have global security implications.

The paper further ramped up its criticism by featuring an “exclusive” interview with Nigel Farage, who accused Starmer of a “damaging capitulation” over Chagos. The article claimed the agreement was rushed through to avoid complications should Donald Trump win next month’s US presidential election, arguing that Trump’s allies see the deal as a strategic win for China.

The Mail speculated that this decision might signal future threats to the status of other British Overseas Territories, including the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar after Starmer apparently refused to guarantee their future sovereignty.

The right-wing hoo-hah seemed to have been stoked by a tweet from James Cleverly, who condemned the Labour government as “weak, weak, weak” for giving up the Chagos Islands. Though it soon came to light that it was Cleverly himself who had initiated talks on the issue during his tenure as foreign secretary, only for them to be paused by his successor, David Cameron.

Former security minister Tom Tugendhat, who, like Cleverly, was knocked out of the Tory leadership contest this week, weighed in, calling it “disgraceful” that negotiations had ever begun under a Conservative government, though he did not mention Cleverly by name. Further complicating matters, allies of Cleverly fired back by accusing former prime minister Liz Truss of leaving behind a “toxic legacy” that contributed to the islands’ loss, though Truss’s spokesperson was quick to point fingers at Boris Johnson, claiming it was his idea to open talks with Mauritius during COP26.

Amid the political blame game, Labour defended its decision by pointing out that the Conservatives had left behind a situation where the UK-US military base on Diego Garcia could have fallen under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), jeopardising British and American security interests.

Offering a rational perspective, Financial Times associate editor Stephen Bush observed that US President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken had welcomed the deal. Bush noted the absurdity of the infighting among Tory leadership candidates, particularly those who had supported Cleverly, who were scrambling to avoid any blame landing on their preferred candidate. He also remarked on the irony that it was the previous Conservative government that had initiated the talks.

As well as illustrating the continuing bickering and ridiculousness of the Tories, the story shows how the right-wing media, particularly the Daily Mail, will seize on any opportunity to launch attacks on Labour, no matter how irrational or void of the facts.

In response to the fears pushed on people by certain politicians and their media allies about a strategically important group of islands, Falklands governor Alison Blake said the legal and historical context of the two territories are “very different.”

The UK’s commitment to the South Atlantic territory’s sovereignty is “unwavering” and “remains undiminished,” she said in a statement.

By conflating unrelated issues like the Falklands and stoking fears of strategic vulnerability, the right-wing media is once again attempting to discredit the current government, weaponising complex geopolitical matters to undermine while glossing over the role Conservative administrations played in these decisions.

Woke-bashing of the week – Toyota bows to anti-woke pressure in latest corporate U-turn

Toyota has become the latest in a growing number of companies retreating from their commitments to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Despite the well-documented benefits of a strong DEI agenda, including improved recruitment, retention, and promotion of staff, an increasing number of businesses are abandoning such efforts to appease a small but vocal group of critics. Harley-Davidson and Black & Decker recently made similar moves.

In a memo to more than 50,000 US employees, Toyota announced it would “refocus” its DEI programmes and would no longer sponsor cultural events, such as LGBTQ+ Pride.

“We will no longer sponsor cultural events such as festivals and parades that are not related to Stem [science, technology, engineering and maths] education and workforce readiness,” the memo read.

Bloomberg reports that the carmaker has also said it will no longer participate in table rankings by LGBTQ advocacy group the Human Rights Campaign and other corporate culture surveys.

This reversal followed a campaign led by Robby Starbuck, a former Hollywood video director turned conservative activist. Starbuck has spearheaded online campaigns against major US brands’ DEI programmes and corporate advocacy on issues like climate change and LGBTQ rights.

He wrote on X: The firm was “one of the most-trusted brands in America but [has] gone totally woke…. I don’t think the values at corporate reflect the values many Toyota/Lexus owners have (with the exception of maybe Prius owners who probably like the woke stuff).”

Following Toyota’s announcement, Starbuck declared victory, stating: “We’re winning and one by one we will bring sanity back to corporate America.”

Toyota’s headquarters in the conservative state of Texas perhaps partly explains the pressures the company faces in navigating America’s increasingly polarised cultural war landscape.

While the anti-woke agenda gains ground in parts of corporate America, it seems far from universally embraced, particularly outside the US. The UK, fortunately, has yet to see companies and sectors buckle to similar demands from conservative activists. Just last week former Tory MP Jonathan Gullis claimed that “woke” teachers were preventing him from re-entering the teaching profession, a claim met with mockery by many, including theTrades Union Congress (TUC), which posted on X: “The trade union movement will always stand up for workers facing unfair discrimination. This is not one of those times.”

After all, being “anti-woke” and teaching aren’t really compatible, as teaching demands an open mind which is never very evident among the cultural warriors. And of course, teachers have to address diversity every day of their professional lives in order to meet the needs of the children they teach.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch