A result of this is that, though still marginalised across Europe, the Far Right is very much a part of the political spectrum and has succeeded in keeping immigration on the agenda. As the vox populi of the disenfranchised, the Far Right has seen its popularity spike in some parts of Europe and in others where the idea of voting for the Far Right is still distasteful, it has arguably seen success as a quasi lobby group. This essay then, seeks to explore to what extent the Far Right has been influential on immigration policy, and policy regarding immigrants. To this end, the essay shall examine the British National Party of the UK and le Front National of France, as well as more successful Far Right organisations in Switzerland.
In 2002, France was brought to crisis when Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National came second in the first round of the presidential votes, beating Lionel Jospin, and leading to a run-off with the centre-right Jacques Chirac. Le Pen's voters were not limited to the classic voting base of the Far Right but rather were diverse (Betz & Immerfall, 1998, p. 18). Rather than suggesting that France had suddenly become a nation of ultranationalists, however, what it shows is that individual voters over the nation had felt an ennui with the mainstream politicians and wanted to demonstrate this with a shock vote. The mainstream media and public at large immediately realising the gravitas of the situation were unified in horror, and headlines such as "Nightmare" helped see to it that Le Pen was soundly defeated (Atkin & Tallet, 2003). Whilst the crisis was comprehensively avoided, it is forever weaved in the legacy of French recent history As such, it can be argued that incumbent presidents and presidential candidates since 2002 are aware of the looming spectre of the Front National and as such are conscious to take steps to avoid such another moment in history. This has led to the phenomenon of Lepenisation.
By addressing the issue of immigration and immigrants head on, centre-right politicians appease voters who may otherwise turn to FN to once again, teach them a lesson. Prior to 2010, President Sarkozy has always spoke tough on politics, perhaps in direct response to the spectre of the Far Right. In 2005, after the Paris riots, Sarkozy bluntly placed blame on the "scum" of the banlieues. Such language is not far off the rhetoric of the Old Far Right, and this is the one of many cases in which Sarkozy has appealed to the ultranationalist. Following the riots, Sarkozy (as Interior Minister) vowed to review immigration policy. In his presidency, Sarkozy has been consistently vocal about immigration, however, no sizeable clampdowns have been implemented. The return of the FN to some sort of media prominence, however, under the leadership of Jean-Marie's daughter Marine Le Pen has coincided with culturally significant laws that were caused controversy and debate throughout Europe. A blanket ban on masks of any type, for security reasons, was a thinly veiled and quickly exposed ban on the complete headwear of some Muslim women. The defence of such a move swiftly developed into whether the burqa is conducive to French ideals of Liberté .This echoes the sentiments of Marine Le-Pen who stated, similarly, that the FN is fighting the "Islamisation of the French Society". With the 2012 Presidential election in mind, there is valid reason to state that Sarkozy's domestic policies regarding immigration are influenced by the presence of the Far Right. What Lepenisation leads to, therefore, is a strengthening of the Far Right as a lobby group. They will not win an election, but they will have the centre-right to their bidding, on a domestic level. With regards immigration policy, however, there is little empirical evidence to suggest that Sarkozy's regulations rise or fall with the popularity of the FN.
The British National Party are currently Britain's foremost anti-immigration organisation, a descendant of the National Front and the Union of fascists. Founded in 1982, the BNP claims that "white Britons have become second-class citizens" and asserts that " asylum-seekers and immigrants are pushed to the front of the queue for housing, jobs and benefits". Perhaps benefitting from the growing Islamaphobia following 9/11, the BNP complete with suits and repackaged rhetoric began to garner increased support and in 2001succesfully ran for council seats in the North-West of England, not an area particularly known for its high levels of immigration. A poll in 2002, found that immigration ranked highly amongst the concerns of 40% British immigrants. At the same time, the Conservative leadership was weak and the BNP capitalised by targeting disillusioned centre-right voters. When the Labour Party chose to occupy BNP territory, and David Blunkett spoke of the children of asylum-seekers "swamping" schools it gave the BNP further legitimacy (Copsey, 2008). Since then, the British National Party has been a constant fixture on the political scene and has sensationally been invited onto the BBC's Question Time and interviewed in the mainstream press. Although the largest, and most infamous, Far Right party the BNP is still a marginalised party and marches fail to gather more than 200 activists at a time. Furthermore, Prime Minister David Cameron has been persistently vocal on his disdain for the BNP. As such, it is hard to argue that the BNP are a group with much influence on immigration policy, yet the Far Right do still have a means of influence, at least in terms of agenda-setting.
The Daily Mail, a tabloid newspaper and historically right-of-centre, has been very vocal on the topic of immigration with headlines such as "Asylum: you're right to worry" and "Immigration soars". As the UK's second newspaper, by circulation, the influence the Daily Mail has great influence, particularly with the right-wing middle class- the natural voting base of the Conservative Party. As such, it is imperative that the Conservative Party- now the government- keep the Daily Mail on board, and a key issue is immigration. Since the 2010 general election, David Cameron's government has introduced, or at least considered, a number of policies to 'crackdown' on the immigration issue, much to the pleasure of the Daily Mail. The election manifesto agreed that immigration was "too high" (Conservatives, 2010), and that they would implement an annual cap on migrants, particularly unskilled workers, and review immigration from within the European Union. In October 2011, David Cameron announced that no immigrant shall be given a UK passport without passing a test on their 'Britishness', including a test of British history. Such a policy seems a response to the BNPs stance that immigrants bring 'their own cultures' to British boarders, with no attempt or reason to assimilate to the British culture. On the other hand, the manifesto of the Labour Party, to whom the Daily Mail are politically opposed, gave little urgency to the issue of immigration. What is difficult of empirically assess, however, is whether this is because a proportion of the Labour Party's vote comes from 1st to 3rd class immigrants and so hard-on-immigration policy would not be in their electoral interest. The Daily Mail are unique in Europe as such a successful right-wing tabloid but fill a void, this essay believes, that is left by the lack of a Far Right organisation that is to be taken seriously.
There are, of course, areas of the European Union wherein the Far Right are not so marginal in power, and are taken very seriously. The most popular party in Switzerland, as of 1999, the Swiss People's Party/Democratic Union of the Centre (UDC) is a populist party, with unabashed New Far Right ideology. The party's sudden success was fuelled by opposition to suggestions of Switzerland becoming a member of the European Union and they have since gone on to be representative of Switzerland's immigration sentiments. Although the Islamic population of Switzerland is by no means a large proportion of the nation (bfs, 2011)it would appear the UDC are engaging in the current Far Right line of fighting "Islamification". They were key in the minaret controversy of 2009 which eventually led to a national referendum wherein it was decided to ban the construction of minarets, attached to mosques, across most of Switzerland. The ban obviously had varied reactions across Europe, but what was made evident was not just that it had support across Europe, but that no European leader spoke out openly against the ban. At most, some leaders such as Sarkozy and Merkel of Germany stated that it was Switzerland's sovereign right to uphold such a ban without criticism or that. Conservative rhetoric links, somewhat weakly, increased immigration to weakened state security. Such rhetoric is fundamental to New Far Right politics, and the UDC campaign posters focused on the need to deport non-EU immigrants for security reasons.
Ausländerkriminalität (Foreign criminality) has been a devisive issue on the Swiss political agenda for a decade, making it difficult for one to assess how much of Switzerland's increased xenophobia is due to the rise of the UDC or vice-versa. Regardless, Switzerland remains a member of the Schengen area (which accounts for 85% of migrants to Switzerland) and so, like France, the Far Right appears to be negligible in influence on immigration policy but have real lobbying power with regards current immigrants. Perhaps if Switzerland operated a Westminster or Washington model of governance, one would see more evidence of direct influence on immigration policy, but Switzerland's multi-party sytem encourages coalition, which in turn moderates the more extreme ideology of the UDC.
As ultranationalists, the Far Right are intrinsically opposed to the 'handing' of some sovereign power to a supranational organisation, although they do advocate the trade implications
" The nations of Europe should be free to trade and cooperate whenever it is mutually beneficial without being forced into a straightjacket of political and economic unification" (BNP, 2011)
Defined as an " area without internal frontiers" (Single European Act, 1987) , the European Union, as it is, has a shared (though not uniform) immigration policy. The EU regards the rights of Asylum Seekers as inalienable, including the right of family reunion (Andersen & Eliassen, 1993). National boarders allow for the free migration of other EU citizens. As such, domestic Far Right organisations are further marginalised with regards the immigration policy vis a vis European migrants. Recently, Far Right groups have successfully campaigned for seats in the European Parliament, certainly in light of this democratic process. Following internal conflict in 2007, the Far Right bloc of the European Parliament was disbanded and the few Far Right MEPs are viewed as non-aligned members, and thus are even more marginalised then their domestic counterparts. These Far Right MEPs, somewhat ironically, are opposed to the European Union and seek to have their state leave the Union, most prominently for boarder reasons. They are, as expected, a rather muted force in the European Parliament and have influence only to the extent that the European Union has set up a Consultative Committee to monitor the expression of racism and xenophobia" (El-Agraa, 2001)
Whilst it is clear that immigration is a permanent fixture on the agenda across Europe, one cannot say with any conviction that this is at the behest of the Far-Right. As previously stated, European citizens tend to be anti-immigration and this has increased sine 2001. Also, as stated, there is little evidence of the Far-Right becoming dominant in the democratic process. With regards immigration policy, which is the subject for all manner of lobbying, and subject to external factors, the Far Right are marginal in the influence. What this essay can say for certain, however, is that the 21st century domestic policies of European nations is directly influenced by Far Right sentiment, particularly with regards Islam. Thus the case is not that the influence of the Far Right on immigration policy is being exaggerated, but rather that the influence the Far Right have as a lobby group on domestic policy, in regards to 1st and 2nd class immigrants is being understated.
Bibliography
Andersen, S. S., & Eliassen, K. A. (1993). Making Policy in Europe. London: Sage.
Art, D. (2011). Inside the Radical Right : The development of anti-immigrant parties in western Europe / David Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atkin, N., & Tallet, F. (2003). The Rght in France: From Revolution to Le Pen. New York: I/B Tauris.
Betz, H.-G., & Immerfall, S. (1998). The new politics of the Right: neo-Populist parties and movements in Established Democracies. London: Macmillan.
bfs. (2011). Population with immigrant Background. Retrieved December 8, 2011, from Swiss Federal Statistical office: http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/01/07/blank/key/04.html
BNP. (2011). Policies: Foreign Affairs. Retrieved November 14, 2011, from British National Party.
BNP, P. R. (1999). Language & Concepts Discipline Manual. Not Stated: Not Stated.
Castles, & Miller. (2009). The Age of Migration. London: Palgrave.
Conservatives. (2010). Conservative Party Manifesto. Not Stated: Not Stated.
Copsey, N. (2008). Contemprory British Facism (2nd ed). London: Paulgrave Macmillan.
El-Agraa, A. M. (2001). The European Union: Economics and Policies. Harlow: Pearson.
Fieschi., C. (2004). Fascism, populism and the French Fifth Republic : in the shadow of democracy. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Kitschelt, H. (1997). The Radical Right in Western Europe. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
