The definition of corporate welfare is sometimes restricted to direct government subsidies of major corporations, excluding tax loopholes and all manner of regulatory and trade decisions, which in practice could be worth much more than any direct subsidies.
Origin of term
The term "corporate welfare" was reportedly invented in 1956 by Ralph Nader.
"Privatizing
profits and socializing losses" refers to the idea that corporations
want to reserve financial gains for themselves and pass along losses to
the rest of society, potentially through lobbying the government for
assistance. This practice was criticized in the Wall Street bailout of 2008.
By country
United States
Background
Subsidies considered excessive, unwarranted, wasteful, unfair, inefficient, or bought by lobbying are often called corporate welfare.
The label of corporate welfare is often used to decry projects
advertised as benefiting the general welfare that spend a
disproportionate amount of funds on large corporations, and often in
uncompetitive, or anti-competitive ways. For instance, in the United States, agricultural subsidies
are usually portrayed as helping independent farmers stay afloat.
However, the majority of income gained from commodity support programs
actually goes to large agribusiness corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland, as they own a considerably larger percentage of production.
Alan Peters and Peter Fisher, Associate Professors at the University of Iowa, have estimated that state and local governments provide $40–50 billion annually in economic development incentives, which critics characterize as corporate welfare.
Some economists consider the 2008 bank bailouts in the United States to be corporate welfare. U.S. politicians have also contended that zero-interest loans from the Federal Reserve System to financial institutions during the global financial crisis were a hidden, backdoor form of corporate welfare. The term gained increased prominence in 2018 when Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a bill, singling out Amazon and Walmart
in particular, to require a company with 500 or more employees to pay
the full cost of welfare benefits received by its workers.
Daniel D. Huff, professor emeritus of social work at Boise State University, published a comprehensive analysis of corporate welfare in 1993.
Huff reasoned that a very conservative estimate of corporate welfare
expenditures in the United States would have been at least US$170 billion in 1990. Huff compared this number with social welfare:
In 1990 the federal government
spent 4.7 billion dollars on all forms of international aid. Pollution
control programs received 4.8 billion dollars of federal assistance
while both secondary and elementary education were allotted only 8.4
billion dollars. More to the point, while more than 170 billion dollars
is expended on assorted varieties of corporate welfare the federal
government spends 11 billion dollars on Aid for Dependent Children. The
most expensive means tested welfare program, Medicaid, costs the federal
government 30 billion dollars a year or about half of the amount
corporations receive each year through assorted tax breaks. S.S.I., the
federal program for the disabled, receives 13 billion dollars while
American businesses are given 17 billion in direct federal aid.
Huff argued that deliberate obfuscation was a complicating factor.
United Kingdom
In 2015, Kevin Farnsworth, a senior lecturer in Social Policy at the University of York published a paper in which he claimed that the government was providing corporate subsidies of £93 billion.
This amount includes the role of the government in increasing trade,
tax relief for businesses that invest in new plants and machinery
(estimated by Farnsworth at £20 billion), not charging fuel duty on fuel
used by railways or airlines, green energy subsidies, a lower
corporation tax rate for small companies, regional development
grants and government procurement for businesses (which Farnsworth
suggests often favours British businesses even when these are not the
best value option available). However, The Register
wrote that Farnsworth's figure for tax relief for investment was
incorrect and that he had made mistakes in his calculations, noting that
he was not an accountant. It also stated that not charging businesses
taxes under certain circumstances (when the reliefs applied) was not the
same as giving them a subsidy. Fuel duty is not charged on airlines due to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (a UN agency) which specifies that aeroplanes should be exempt from fuel duties.
Political discussion
In 2015, Labour Party leaderJeremy Corbyn
said he would "strip out" the £93bn of "corporate tax relief and
subsidies" Farnsworth referred to and use the proceeds for public
investment. Corbyn did not say which specific policies he would change. The Guardian
wrote the policy "sounds wonderful, but careful scrutiny of 'corporate
welfare' shows that it includes capital allowances designed to persuade
companies to invest, regional aid to boost growth in rundown parts of
the UK, and subsidies to keep bus and rail routes open – none of which
Corbyn would presumably like to see stopped."
The Reform Party and its successor the Canadian Alliance were known for opposing mostly business subsidies. However, after their merger with the Progressive Conservative party, they dropped their opposition to it.
India
It was observed by The Wire that the effective tax rate
was low for the larger corporations which meant companies making
smaller profits are competing in an unequal environment against bigger
companies with substantial taxation benefits, with the gap in effective
tax rates widening over the years. Prime Minister of IndiaNarendra Modi criticised this practice and said
"Why is it that subsidies going to
the well-off are portrayed in a positive manner? Let me give you an
example. The total revenue loss from incentives to corporate tax payers
was over Rs 62,000 crore...
I must confess I am surprised by the way words are used by experts on
this matter. When a benefit is given to farmers or to the poor, experts
and government officers normally call it a subsidy. However, I find that
if a benefit is given to industry or commerce, it is usually an
'incentive' or a 'subvention'."
Right-wing populism, also called national populism and right-wing nationalism, is a political ideology which combines right-wing politics and populist rhetoric and themes. The rhetoric often consists of anti-elitist sentiments, opposition to the Establishment, and speaking to the "common people". Both right-wing populism and left-wing populism object to the perceived control of liberal democracies
by elites; however, populism of the left also objects to the power of
large corporations and their allies, while populism of the right
normally supports strong controls on immigration.
From the 1990s, right-wing populist parties became established in the legislatures of various democracies. Although extreme right-wing movements in the United States (where they are normally referred to as the "radical right") have been characterized atomistically, some writers consider them to be a part of a broader, right-wing populist phenomenon.
Classification of right-wing populism into a single political family
has proved difficult and it is not certain whether a meaningful
category exists, or merely a cluster of categories since the parties
differ in ideology, organization and leadership rhetoric. Unlike
traditional parties, they also do not belong to international
organizations of like-minded parties, and they do not use similar terms
to describe themselves.
Cas Mudde
argues that two definitions can be given of the "populist radical
right": a maximum and a minimum one, with the "maximum" group being a
subgroup of the "minimum" group. The minimum definition describes what Michael Freeden has called the "core concept"
of the right-wing populist ideology, that is the concept shared by all
parties generally included in the family. Looking at the primary
literature, Mudde concludes that the core concept of right-populism "is
undoubtedly the "nation".
"This concept", he explains, "also certainly functions as a
"coat-hanger" for most other ideological features. Consequently, the
minimum definition of the party family should be based on the key
concept, the nation". He however rejects the use of "nationalism"
as a "core ideology" of right-wing populism on the ground that there
are also purely "civic" or "liberal" forms of nationalism, preferring
instead the term "nativism":
a xenophobic form of nationalism asserting that "states should be
inhabited exclusively by members of the native group ("the nation"), and
that non-native elements (persons and ideas) are fundamentally
threatening to the homogeneous nation-state". Mudde further argues that
"while nativism could include racist arguments, it can also be
non-racist (including and excluding on the basis of culture or even
religion)", and that the term nativism does not reduce the parties to
mere single-issue parties, such as the term "anti-immigrant" does. In
the maximum definition, to nativism is added authoritarianism—an attitude, not necessary anti-democratic or automatic, to prefer "law and order" and the submission to authority—and populism—a
"thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately
separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, "the pure
people" versus "the corrupt elite", and which argues that politics
should be an expression of the "general will of the people", if needed
before human rights or constitutional guarantees.
Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser reiterated in 2017 that
within European right-wing populism there is a "marriage of convenience"
of populism based on an "ethnic and chauvinistic definition of the
people", authoritarianism, and nativism. This results in right-wing
populism having a "xenophobic nature."
Roger Eatwell, Emeritus Professor of Comparative Politics at the University of Bath,
writes that "whilst populism and fascism differ notably ideologically,
in practice the latter has borrowed aspects of populist discourse and
style, and populism can degenerate into leader-oriented authoritarian
and exclusionary politics." For populism to transition into fascism or proto-fascism, it requires a "nihilistic culture and an intractable crisis."
[P]opulism is like fascism in being a response to liberal
and socialist explanations of the political. And also like fascism,
populism does not recognize a legitimate political place for an
opposition that it regards as acting against the desires of the people
and that it also accuses of being tyrannical, conspiratorial, and
antidemocratic. ... The opponents are turned into public enemies, but
only rhetorically. If populism moves from rhetorical enmity to practices
of enemy identification and persecution, we could be talking about its
transformation into fascism or another form of dictatorial repression.
This has happened in the past ... and without question it could happen
in the future. This morphing of populism back into fascism is always a
possibility, but it is very uncommon, and when it does happen, and
populism becomes fully antidemocratic, it is no longer populism.
In summary, Erik Berggren and Andres Neergard wrote in 2015 that "[m]ost researchers agree [...] that xenophobia, anti-immigration sentiments, nativism, ethno-nationalism
are, in different ways, central elements in the ideologies, politics,
and practices of right-wing populism and Extreme Right Wing Parties."
Similarly, historian Rick Shenkman describes the ideology presented by
right-wing populism as "a deadly mix of xenophobia, racism, and
authoritarianism."
Tamir Bar-On also concluded in 2018 that the literature generally
places "nativism" or "ethnic nationalism" as the core concept of the
ideology, which "implicitly posits a politically dominant group, while
minorities are conceived as threats to the nation". It is "generally,
but not necessarily racist"; in the case of the Dutch PVV for instance, "a religious [minority, i.e. Muslims] instead of an ethnic minority constitutes the main 'enemy'".
To Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin,
"national populists prioritize the culture and interests of the nation,
and promise to give voice to a people who feel that they have been
neglected, even held in contempt, by distant and often corrupt elites."
They are part, Eatwell and Goodwin follow, of a "growing revolt against
mainstream politics and liberal values. This challenge is in general not
anti-democratic. Rather, national populists are opposed to certain aspects
of liberal democracy as it has evolved in the West. [...] [Their]
"direct" conception of democracy differs from the "liberal" one that has
flourished across the West following the defeat of fascism and which
has gradually become more elitist in character." Furthermore, national
populists question what they call the "erosion of the nation-state",
"hyper ethnic change" and the "capacity to rapidly absorb [high] rates
of immigration", the "highly unequal societies" of the West's current
economic settlement, and are suspicious of "cosmopolitan and globalizing
agendas".
Populist parties use crisis in their domestic governments to enhance
anti-globalist reactions; these include refrainment towards trade and
anti-immigration policies. The support for these ideologies commonly
comes from people whose employment might have low occupational mobility.
This makes them more likely to develop an anti-immigrant and
anti-globalization mentality that aligns with the ideals of the populist
party.
Jean-Yves Camus and Nicolas Lebourg
see "national populism" as an attempt to combine socio-economical
values of the left and political values of the right, and the support
for a referendary republic that would bypass traditional political divisions and institutions. As they aim at a unity of the political (the demos), ethnic (the ethnos) and social (the working class)
interpretations of the "people", national populists claim to defend the
"average citizen" and "common sense", against the "betrayal of
inevitably corrupt elites". As Front National ideologue François Duprat
put in the 1970s, inspired by the Latin American right of that time,
right-populism aims to constitute a "national, social, and popular"
ideology. If populism
itself is shared by both left and right parties, their premises are
indeed different in that right-wing populists perceive society as in a
state of decadence, from which "only the healthy common people can free
the nation by forming one national class from the different social
classes and casting aside the corrupt elites".
Methodologically, by co-opting concepts from the left – such as multiculturalism and ethnopluralism,
which is espoused by the left as a means of preserving minority ethnic
cultures within a pluralistic society – and then jettisoning their
non-hierarchical essence, right-wing populists are able to, in the words
of sociologist Jens Rydgren, "mobilize on xenophobic and racist public opinions without being stigmatized as racists."
History
Europe
European right-wing populism can be traced back to the period 1870–1900 in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War, with the nascence of two different trends in Germany and France: the Völkisch movement and Boulangism. Völkischen represented a romantic nationalist, racialist,
and from the 1900s antisemitic tendency in German society, as they
idealized a bio-mystical "original nation", that still could be found in
their views in the rural regions, a form of "primitive democracy freely
subjected to their natural elites". In France, the anti-parliamentarian Ligue des Patriotes, led by Boulanger, Déroulède and Barrès, called for a "plebiscitary republic", with the president elected by universal suffrage,
and the popular will expressed not through elected representatives (the
"corrupted elites"), but rather via "legislative plebiscites", another
name for referendums. It also evolved to antisemitism after the Dreyfus affair (1894).
Modern national populism—what Pierro Ignazi called "post-industrial parties"—emerged in the 1970s, in a dynamic sustained by voters' rejection of the welfare state
and of the tax system, both deemed "confiscatory"; the rise of
xenophobia against the backdrop of immigration which, because
originating from outside Europe, was considered to be of a new kind; and
finally, the end of the prosperity that had reigned since the
post–World War II era, symbolized by the oil crisis of 1973. Two precursor parties consequently appeared in the early 1970s: the Progress Party, ancestor of the Danish People's Party; and the Anders Lange's Party in Norway.
A new wave of right-wing populism arose in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
"Neo-populists" are nationalist and Islamophobic politicians who aspire
"to be the champions of freedoms for minorities (gays, Jews, women)
against the Arab-Muslim masses"; a trend first embodied by the Dutch Pim Fortuyn List, and later followed by Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom and Marine Le Pen's National Rally. According to Jean-Yves Camus and Nicolas Lebourg, those parties are however not a real syncretism of the left and right, as both their ideology and voter base are interclassist. Furthermore, neo-populist parties went from a critique of the welfare state to that of multiculturalism, and their priority demand remains the reduction of immigration.
Political scientist Gaël Brustier defines that new populist trend as a
"national security hedonism", that is the alliance between liberal
individualism and national security concerns.
In Brazil, right-wing populism began to rise roughly around the time Dilma Rousseff won the 2014 presidential election. In the Brazilian general election of 2014, Levy Fidelix, from the Brazilian Labour Renewal Party presented himself with a conservative speech and, according to him, the only right-wing candidate. He spoke for traditional family values
and opposed abortion, legalization of marijuana, same-sex marriage and
proposed homosexual individuals to be treated far away from the good
citizens' and workers' families. In the first round of the general election, Fidelix received 446,878 votes, representing 0.43% of the popular vote. Fidelix ranked 7th out of 11 candidates. In the second round, Fidelix supported candidate Aécio Neves.
In addition, according to the political analyst of the
Inter-Union Department of Parliamentary Advice Antônio Augusto de
Queiroz the National Congresselected in 2014
may be considered the most conservative since the "re-democratization"
movement, noting an increase in the number of parliamentarians linked to
more conservative segments, such as ruralists, the military, the police and the religious right.
The subsequent economic crisis of 2015 and investigations of corruption
scandals led to a right-wing movement that sought to rescue fiscally and socially conservative ideas from in opposition to the left-wing policies of the Workers' Party. At the same time, young market liberals and right-libertarians such as those that make up the Free Brazil Movement
emerged among many others. For Manheim (1952), within a single real
generation there may be several generations which he called
"differentiated and antagonistic". For him, it is not the common birth
date that marks a generation, though it matters, but rather the
historical moment in which they live in common. In the case, the
historical moment was the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff. They can be called the "post-Dilma generation".
In August 2018, Conservative MP Maxime Bernier left the party, and the following month he founded the People's Party of Canada, which has been described as a "right of centre, populist" movement.
Moore (1996) argues that "populist opposition to the growing
power of political, economic, and cultural elites" helped shape
"conservative and right-wing movements" since the 1920s. Historical right-wing populist figures in both major parties in the United States have included Thomas E. Watson, Strom Thurmond, Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater, George Wallace and Pat Buchanan.
The Tea Party movement
has been characterized as "a right-wing anti-systemic populist
movement" by Rasmussen and Schoen (2010). They add: "Today our country
is in the midst of a...new populist revolt that has emerged
overwhelmingly from the right – manifesting itself as the Tea Party
movement". In 2010, David Barstow wrote in The New York Times: "The Tea Party movement has become a platform for conservative populist discontent". Some political figures closely associated with the Tea Party, such as U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and former U.S. Representative Ron Paul, have been described as appealing to right-wing populism. In the U.S. House of Representatives, the Freedom Caucus, which is associated with the Tea Party movement, has been described as right-wing populist.
Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, noted for its anti-establishment, anti-immigration and anti-free trade rhetoric, was characterized as that of a right-wing populist. The ideology of Trump's former Chief Strategist, Steve Bannon, has also been described as such. According to a 2018 study, there is a strong correlation between the ratio of U.S. jobs that were lost to automation
and the states—such as Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin—that voted for Barack Obama in 2012 and for Trump in 2016.
Some figures within the Liberal Party of Australia, which is part of the Coalition, have been described as right-wing populists, including former Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton.
India
In India, right-wing populism came into the picture in the late 1980s by current ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the political party having close relation to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Right-wing populism has been fostered by RSS which stands against persecution of Hindus by various invading forces over the centuries and have also been attributed to the concept of Hindutva. It vows to protect the ancient religion and culture of Hinduism
and have strong views against destruction of its ancient heritage, in
India. BJP became a significant force in the state legislative
assemblies and in the parliament in the 1990s by raising the issue of
Ram Mandir (temple) establishment by demolishing the existing Babri
Masjid (constructed by demolishing a Hindu temple) in Ayodhya, in the state of Uttar Pradesh. BJP and other conservative right wing organization such as Vishva Hindu Parishad, Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha etc. argues that the Masjid was built by Babur, the Muslim, Turco-Mongol founder of the Mughal Empire in India in 1526, by demolishing a temple, dedicated to Lord Ram. This issue is known as the Ayodhya Dispute
for which the final judgement was declared by the Supreme Court of
India on 9 November 2019. The Supreme Court of India ordered the
disputed land (2.77 acres) to be handed over to a trust (to be created
by Government of India) to build the Ram Janmabhoomi (revered as the
birthplace of Hindu deity, Ram) temple. The court also ordered the
government to give an alternate 5 acres (almost double that of the Ram
Janmabhumi) of land in another place to the Sunni Waqf Board for the
purpose of building a mosque.
In recently concluded 2019 Indian general election,
the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by BJP have swept across the
elections with unprecedented majority of 353 seats by gaining
popularity across India and reducing the United Progressive Alliance led
by Indian National Congress to only 91 seats.
In a speech to LDP lawmakers in Tokyo on 8 March 2019, Steve Bannon
said that “Prime Minister Abe is a great hero to the grassroots, the
populist, and the nationalist movement throughout the world.”
Pakistan
The recent wave of right-wing populism is in Pakistan in the form of Pakistan Tehreek Insaaf (PTI). Its leader Imran Khan has furiously attacked traditional politicians and made people believe that only he has the solutions. British journalist Ben Judah, in an interview, compared Imran Khan with Donald Trump on his populist rhetoric.
Taiwan's
right-wing populists tend to deny the independent identity of their
country's 'Taiwan' and emphasize their identity as a 'Republic of
China'. Taiwan's left-wingTaiwanese nationalists have strong pro-American tendencies, so Taiwan's major and minor conservatives are critical of this. In particular, Taiwan's right-wing populists demand that economic growth Issues and right-wing Chinese nationalist issues be more important than liberal democracy, and that they become closer to the People's Republic of China. One of Taiwan's leading right-wing populists is Terry Gou and Han Kuo-yu.
European countries
European national parliaments with representatives from right-wing populist parties in May 2019: Right-wing populists represented in the parliament Right-wing populists providing external support for government Right-wing populists involved in the government Right-wing populists appoint prime minister/president
Senior European Union diplomats cite growing anxiety in Europe about Russian financial support for far-right and populist movements and told the Financial Times that the intelligence agencies of "several" countries had stepped up scrutiny of possible links with Moscow. In 2016, the Czech Republic warned that Russia tries to "divide and conquer" the European Union by supporting right-wing populist politicians across the bloc.
However, as there in the United States of America, there seems to be an
underlying problem that isn't massively discussed in the media. That
underlying problem is that of housing. A 2019 study shows an immense correlation between the price of housing and voting for populist parties.
In that study, it was revealed that the French citizens that saw the
price of their houses stagnate or drop, were much more likely to vote
for Marine Le Pen in the 2017 French presidential election. Whereas those that the price of their house rise, were much more likely to vote for Emmanuel Macron. The same pattern emerged in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum,
in which those that saw the price of their house rise, voted to Remain.
Whereas those that saw it flatline or drop, voted to Leave.
Austria
The Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) established in 1955 claims to represent a "Third Camp" (Drittes Lager), beside the Socialist Party and the social Catholic Austrian People's Party. It succeeded the Federation of Independents founded after World War II, adopting the pre-war heritage of German nationalism,
although it did not advocate Nazism and placed itself in the political
centre. Though it did not gain much popularity for decades, it exercised
considerable balance of power by supporting several federal governments, be it right-wing or left-wing, e.g. the Socialist Kreisky cabinet of 1970.
From 1980, the Freedom Party adopted a more liberal stance. Upon the 1983 federal election, it entered a coalition government with the Socialist Party, whereby party chairman Norbert Steger served as Vice-Chancellor. The liberal interlude however ended, when Jörg Haider was elected chairman in 1986. By his down-to-earth manners and patriotic
attitude, Haider re-integrated the party's nationalist base voters.
Nevertheless, he was also able to obtain votes from large sections of
population disenchanted with politics by publicly denouncing corruption
and nepotism of the Austrian Proporz system. The electoral success was boosted by Austria's accession to the European Union in 1995.
Upon the 1999 federal election, the Freedom Party (FPÖ) with 26.9% of the votes cast became the second strongest party in the National Council
parliament. Having entered a coalition government with the People's
Party, Haider had to face the disability of several FPÖ ministers, but
also the impossibility of agitation against members of his own cabinet.
In 2005, he finally countered the FPÖ's loss of reputation by the Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZÖ) relaunch in order to carry on his government. The remaining FPÖ members elected Heinz-Christian Strache chairman, but since the 2006 federal election
both right-wing parties have run separately. After Haider was killed in
a car accident in 2008, the BZÖ has lost a measurable amount of
support.
Vlaams Blok,
established in 1978, operated on a platform of law and order,
anti-immigration (with particular focus on Islamic immigration) and
secession of the Flanders
region of the country. The secession was originally planned to end in
the annexation of Flanders by the culturally and linguistically similar Netherlands
until the plan was abandoned due to the multiculturalism in that
country. In the elections to the Flemish Parliament in June 2004, the
party received 24.2% of the vote, within less than 2% of being the
largest party. However, in November of the same year, the party was ruled illegal under the country's anti-racism law for, among other things, advocating segregated schools for citizens and immigrants.
In less than a week, the party was re-established under the name Vlaams Belang, with a near-identical ideology. It advocates the adoption of the Flemish culture and language by immigrants who wish to stay in the country. Despite some accusations of antisemitism from Belgium's Jewish population, the party has demonstrated a staunch pro-Israel stance as part of its opposition to Islam. With 23 of 124 seats, Vlaams Belang leads the opposition in the Flemish Parliament and it also holds 11 out of the 150 seats in the Belgian House of Representatives.
As of the 2019 federal, regional and European elections Vlaams
Belang (VB) has surged from 248,843 votes in 2014 to 783,977 votes on 26
May 2019.
Bulgaria
Volya is a right-wing populist political party founded by Bulgarian businessman Veselin Mareshki on 15 July 2007. Before 2016, it was known variously as Today and Liberal Alliance.
The party advocates populist and reform policies, promoting patriotism,
strict immigration controls, friendlier relations with Moscow,
Bulgarian withdrawal form NATO, and the need to "sweep away the garbage" of a corrupt political establishment.
Cyprus
The ELAM (National People's Front) (Εθνικό Λαϊκό Μέτωπο) was formed in 2008. Its platform includes maintaining Cypriot identity, opposition to further European integration, immigration and the status quo
that remains due to Turkey's invasion of a third of the island (and the
international community's lack of intention to solve the issue).
Denmark
In the early 1970s, the home of the strongest right-wing-populist party in Europe was in Denmark, the Progress Party. In the 1973 election, it received almost 16% of the vote. In the following years, its support dwindled away, but was replaced by the Danish People's Party
in the 1990s, which has gone on to be an important support party for
the governing Liberal-Conservative coalition in the 2000s (decade).
The Danish People's Party is the largest and most influential
right-wing populist party in Denmark today. It won 37 seats in the 2015 Danish general election
and became the second largest party in Denmark. The Danish People's
Party advocates immigration reductions, particularly from non-Western
countries, favor cultural assimilation of first generation migrants into
Danish society and are opposed to Denmark becoming a multicultural
society.
Additionally, the Danish People's Party's stated goals are to enforce a strict rule of law, to maintain a strong welfare system for those in need, to promote economic growth by strengthening education and encouraging people to work and in favor of protecting the environment. In 2015, The New Right was founded, but they have not yet participated in an election.
France's National Front (NF) – renamed in 2018 as the "National Rally" – has been cited the "prototypical populist radical right-wing party".
The party was founded in 1972 by Jean-Marie Le Pen
as the unification of a number of French nationalist movements of the
time, it was developed by him into a well-organized party.
After struggline for a decade, the party reached its first peak in
1984. By 2002, Le Pen received more votes than the Socialist candidate
in the first round of voting for the French presidency, becoming the
first time a NF candidate had qualified for a high-level run-off
election.
Since Le Pen's daughter, Marine Le Pen,
took over as the head of the party in 2011, the National Front has
established itself as one of the main political parties in France.
Marine Le Pen's policy of "de-demonizing", or normalizing the party
resulted in her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, being first suspended and
then ejected from the party in 2015.
Marine Le Pen finished second in the 2017 election and lost in the second round of voting versus Emmanuel Macron
which was held on 7 May 2017. However, polls published in 2018 showed
that a majority of the French population consider the party to be a
threat to democracy.
The 2018 Hungarian parliamentary election result was a victory for the Fidesz–KDNP alliance, preserving its two-thirds majority, with Viktor Orbán
remaining Prime Minister. Orbán and Fidesz campaigned primarily on the
issues of immigration and foreign meddling, and the election was seen as
a victory for right-wing populism in Europe.
The Golden Dawn
has grown significantly in Greece during the country's economic
downturn, gaining 7% of the vote and 18 out of 300 seats in the Hellenic Parliament. The party's ideology includes annexation of territory in Albania and Turkey, including the Turkish cities of Istanbul and Izmir. Controversial measures by the party included a poor people's kitchen in Athens which only supplied to Greek citizens and was shut down by the police.
In Italy, the most prominent right-wing populist party is Lega, formerly Lega Nord (Northern League), whose leaders reject the right-wing label, though not the "populist" one. The League is a federalist, regionalist and sometimes secessionist party, founded in 1991 as a federation of several regional parties of Northern and Central Italy,
most of which had arisen and expanded during the 1980s. LN's program
advocates the transformation of Italy into a federal state, fiscal
federalism and greater regional autonomy, especially for the Northern
regions. At times, the party has advocated for the secession of the
North, which it calls Padania. The party generally takes an anti-Southern Italian
stance as members are known for opposing Southern Italian emigration to
Northern Italian cities, stereotyping Southern Italians as welfare
abusers and detrimental to Italian society and attributing Italy's
economic troubles and the disparity of the North-South divide in the Italian economy to supposed inherent negative characteristics of the Southern Italians, such as laziness, lack of education or criminality. Certain LN members have been known to publicly deploy the offensive slur "terrone", a common pejorative term for Southern Italians that is evocative of negative Southern Italian stereotypes.
As a federalist, regionalist, populist party of the North, LN is also
highly critical of the centralized power and political importance of Rome, sometimes adopting to a lesser extent an anti-Roman stance in addition to an anti-Southern stance.
With the rise of immigration into Italy since the late 1990s, LN
has increasingly turned its attention to criticizing mass immigration to
Italy. The LN, which also opposes illegal immigration, is critical of Islam and proposes Italy's exit from the Eurozone, is considered a Eurosceptic movement and as such is apart of the Identity and Democracy(ID) group in the European Parliament.
LN was or is part of the national government in 1994, 2001–2006,
2008–2011 and 2018–2019. Most recently, the party, which notably
includes among its members the Presidents of Lombardy and Veneto, won 17.4% of the vote in the 2018 general election, becoming the third-largest party in Italy (largest within the centre-right coalition). In the 2014 European election, under the leadership of Matteo Salvini it took 6.2% of votes. Under Salvini, the party has to some extent embraced Italian nationalism
and emphasised Euroscepticism, opposition to immigration and other
"populist" policies, while forming an alliance with right-wing populist
parties in Europe.
Silvio Berlusconi, leader of Forza Italia and Prime Minister of Italy
from 1994–1995, 2001–2006 and 2008–2011, has sometimes been described
as a right-wing populist, although his party is not typically described
as such.
Additionally, in the German-speaking South Tyrol the local second-largest party, Die Freiheitlichen, is often described as a right-wing populist party.
In the Netherlands, right-wing populism was represented in the 150-seat House of Representatives in 1982, when the Centre Party won a single seat. During the 1990s, a splinter party, the Centre Democrats,
was slightly more successful, although its significance was still
marginal. Not before 2002 did a right-wing populist party break through
in the Netherlands, when the Pim Fortuyn List won 26 seats and subsequently formed a coalition with the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) and People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). Fortuyn,
who had strong views against immigration, particularly by Muslims, was
assassinated in May 2002, two weeks before the election. The coalition had broken up by 2003, and the party went into steep decline until it was dissolved.
Since 2006, the Party for Freedom
(PVV) has been represented in the House of Representatives. Following
the 2010 general election, it has been in a pact with the right-wing minority government of CDA and VVD after it won 24 seats in the House of Representatives. The party is Eurosceptic and plays a leading role in the changing stance of the Dutch government towards European integration as they came second in the 2009 European Parliament election, winning 4 out of 25 seats. The party's main programme revolves around strong criticism of Islam,
restrictions on migration from new European Union countries and Islamic
countries, pushing for cultural assimilation of migrants into Dutch
society, opposing the accession of Turkey to the European Union, advocating for the Netherlands to withdraw from the European Union and advocating for a return to the guilder through ending Dutch usage of the euro.
The PVV withdrew its support for the First Rutte cabinet in 2012 after refusing to support austerity measures. This triggered the 2012 general election in which the PVV was reduced to 15 seats and excluded from the new government.
In the 2017 Dutch general election,
Wilders' PVV gained an extra five seats to become the second largest
party in the Dutch House of Representatives, bringing their total to 20
seats.
From 2017 onwards, the Forum for Democracy has emerged as another right-wing populist force in the Netherlands.
Polish Congress of the New Right, headed by Michał Marusik, aggressively promotes fiscally conservative
concepts like radical tax reductions preceded by abolishment of social
security, universal public healthcare, state-sponsored education and
abolishment of Communist Polish 1944 agricultural reform as a way to
dynamical economic and welfare growth. The party is considered populist both by right-wing and left-wing publicists.
Spain
Santiago Abascal, leader of VOX, during the party conference in October 2018.
In Spain, the appearance of right-wing populism began to gain strength after the December 2018 election for the Parliament of Andalusia, in which the right-wing populist party VOX managed to obtain 12 seats, and agreed to support a coalition government of the parties of the right People's Party and Citizens, even though the Socialist Party won the elections. VOX, that has been frequently described as far-right, both by the left parties and by Spanish or international press, promotes characteristic policies of the populist right,
such as the expulsion of all illegal immigrants from the country -even
of legal immigrants who commit crimes-, a generalized criminal
tightening, combined with traditional claims of right-wing
conservatives, such as the centralization of the State and the
suppression of the Autonomous Communities, and has harshly criticized the laws against gender violence, approved by the socialist government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, but later maintained by the PP executive of Mariano Rajoy, accusing the people and institutions that defend them of applying "gender totalitarianism".
Party official Javier Ortega Smith is being investigated for alleged hate speech
after Spanish prosecutors admitted a complaint by an Islamic
association in connection with a rally that talked about “the Islamist
invasion”. The party election manifesto that was finally published merged classic far-right-inspired policies with right-wing liberalism in tax and social security matters.
After months of political uncertainty and protests against the party in Andalusia and other regions, in the 2019 Spanish general election VOX managed to obtain 24 deputies in the Congress of Deputies, with 10.26% of the vote, falling short from expectations
after an intense electoral campaign in which VOX gathered big crowds of
people at their events. Although the People's Party and Citizens
leaders, Pablo Casado and Albert Rivera, had admitted repeatedly during the campaign that they would again agree with VOX in order to reach the government, the sum of all their seats finally left them far from any possibility, giving the government to the socialist Pedro Sánchez.
In Switzerland, the right-wing populist Swiss People's Party (SVP) reached an all-time high in the 2015 elections. The party is mainly considered to be national conservative, but it has also variously been identified as "extreme right" and "radical right-wing populist", reflecting a spectrum of ideologies present among its members. In its far-right wing, it includes members such as Ulrich Schlüer, Pascal Junod, who heads a New Right study group and has been linked to Holocaust denial and neo-Nazism.
In Switzerland, radical right populist parties held close to 10%
of the popular vote in 1971, were reduced to below 2% by 1979 and again
grew to more than 10% in 1991. Since 1991, these parties (the Swiss Democrats and the Swiss Freedom Party)
have been absorbed by the SVP. During the 1990s, the SVP grew from
being the fourth largest party to being the largest and gained a second
seat the Swiss Federal Council in 2003, with prominent politician and businessman Christoph Blocher.
In 2015, the SVP received 29.4% of the vote, the highest vote ever
recorded for a single party throughout Swiss parliamentary history.
.jpg)
.png)
.JPG)
_(cropped).jpg)
