Politics for Change: Black Lives Matter in Europe

The murder of George Floyd in the US earlier this year exposed police brutality and galvanised action across the world. It has also demonstrated the deadly consequences inherent in the structural racism that plagues societies on both sides of the Atlantic. How can we ensure that this wave of anger translates into a politics for change? We spoke to Alice Bah Kuhnke, Vice-President of the Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament, about fighting structural racism in Europe and the role of democratic debate and the EU in this process.

Green European Journal: The murder of George Floyd sparked virulent protests all over the world, even though this wasn’t the first time that police brutality against African Americans has been highlighted. What makes this case different?

Alice Bah Kuhnke: It’s true. Unfortunately, George Floyd or Breonna Taylor are not the only people to have been killed by police brutality. This begs the question of why this indignation is only coming now. Since the death of George Floyd, there have been many outcries, demonstrations and local and even regional reactions. This time it is indeed different. I don’t have the answer as to exactly why, but it’s worth looking at the specific context in which the murder took place. It was so terribly visible on video and was shared millions of times on social media. In this day and age, news and information travel fast.

We also have to consider the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has made many people all over the world more vulnerable than ever. Confined to their homes, people have had more time to follow the news and social media more closely than usual. These are some of the circumstances that have raised international awareness of the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Everybody got to clearly see the ugly face of police brutality, while simultaneously being confronted with their own Covid-19-related vulnerability.

Everybody got to clearly see the ugly face of police brutality, while simultaneously being confronted with their own Covid-19-related vulnerability.

Do you think this will be a defining moment leading to lasting political change, or is it a momentary wave of anger and indignation?

That is still to be determined. It’s up to us to decide what will come out of this moment. I hope that we are mature enough to not only grieve and condemn the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, but that we look beyond to understand that this isn’t just about police brutality and the murder of two African-American people; these acts were consequences of the structural racism in our societies. If we understand that, we will be able to translate these murders into a politics for change.

In America the Black Lives Matter movement has put forth a range of demands such as defunding the police and removing statues of people associated with racism. Are these the kind of policies you would associate with a “politics for change”?

The United States has its own context. You can’t compare the structural racism and its consequences in the US with Europe or the rest of the world. That’s important to understand because we cannot just copy-paste the demands and policy proposals from one country to another. That would be oversimplifying things, although some of the demands of Black Lives Matter in the US can also have an important impact in a European context.

Let’s take the demand to remove statues of people associated with racism. In the United Kingdom, a statue in Bristol of the slave trader Edward Colston was removed by protestors and replaced by a sculpture made by the Black Lives Matter movement [it was subsequently removed by Bristol Council].

First off all, racism and discrimination aren’t going to disappear because a statue has been torn down. If that’s what people think, then we are in big trouble because the problems are so much wider and deeper.

Let’s be very clear on this: people can’t just go out onto the streets and pull down whichever statue they don’t like. We don’t live by the law of the jungle. We live in a democracy where we have necessary democratic processes. We need to have discussions about what should change. I believe every responsible politician in every municipality in every EU country should invite their local citizens to an assembly to discuss the statues in their city and ask: are these the statues that we want? Are these the heroes that we need and how should we interpret them? Then, after these discussions – long discussions that should take several months – there should be a meeting where a democratic decision is taken on whether we take the statues down, put them in a museum, or keep them. That’s how we do things in a democracy. The idea that whoever is the strongest in the street at a given moment can tear anything down is deeply authoritarian. 

Authoritarian tendencies are not solely confined to the far right but are also present in left-wing movements.

Indeed, and as Greens we must strongly defend democratic processes in which everybody is heard, including minorities and people with different opinions. Just because hundreds of thousands of people are in the streets wanting to take a statue down, that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Politicians need to be brave enough to say that and argue in favour of democratic processes. I often hear that people have had enough of talking and that now is the time for action. That’s wrong. Democracy is about conversation – not only about talking but also listening, especially to minorities and those who see things differently. Enabling such processes is our responsibility.

Democracy is about conversation – not only about talking but also listening, especially to minorities and those who see things differently.

But what about the civil rights movement, civil disobedience and Martin Luther King? Aren’t civil disobedience and direct action also part of a democratic conversation, particularly when democratic processes prove unresponsive?

Green parties across Europe are all closely connected to green grassroot movements. Both on our own initiative and in support of broader agendas, Green representatives and supporters will always be found at demonstrations and publicly criticising injustice in any undemocratic society. As a politician, I see myself as a representative of their beliefs and political wishes.

Having said that, one has to push for change within the common juridical framework that is put in place by all of us, the people, through democratic decisions. Even if you want to change the framework – or the system, if you prefer – you have to start changing it from within. The process sometimes seems slow, but during my years in politics I have repeatedly seen ideas and wishes turning into concrete actions. With politicians in our political institutions who are driven by wishes that correspond with the people, change is possible. That is why the best way to change things is to vote for a political party and politician who you trust will represent your beliefs and fight your battles.

What’s the situation with anti-racism protests in your home country, Sweden? What challenges is Sweden facing in particular?

When it comes to racism and discrimination, Sweden is facing similar challenges to those in countries like Denmark or Germany. Most hate crimes committed are racially motived, and people of African descent are more exposed to physical violence than the rest of the population. Structural discrimination in Sweden is visible in different areas of society: in the workplace, in the education system, in political institutions, and in our everyday lives. The result of this is unequal life chances, where some are privileged with better opportunities than others. In the end it is all about power – the power to shape our lives and the society we are part of. 

One problem is that we are lacking proper statistics and data on structural racism. Such information is necessary for politics to be able to deal with the issue.

One problem is that we are lacking proper statistics and data on structural racism. Such information is necessary for politics to be able to deal with the issue. Most of the information available comes from civil rights organisations and NGOs. So there is first and foremost a need to strengthen data collection and awareness raising. Of course, we know there is racial discrimination on the labour market, when it comes to housing or even just entering restaurants and bars. This has been amply documented by NGOs and journalists. But not enough is being done about it because there is structural racism within agencies and the whole of society.

You once said that the Swedish Greens need to “go where the far-right extremists go”. What did you mean by that?

For many years in Sweden, it was considered a God-given truth that you shouldn’t debate with extremists. That you should just ignore them instead of giving them the floor to let them express their hateful views. That was a mistake. The idea that we shouldn’t debate with certain people is filled with conceit. I understand the arguments behind it, but I think Greens need to engage and let people also hear our arguments and points of view. We need to be brave and take that debate head-on, not shy away and let the extremists carry the debate to wherever they want to take it.

People of colour are also underrepresented in politics. What is necessary to ensure that people of colour are better represented in political institutions?

This is an incredibly important issue because our democratic system depends on one central factor – trust. If the parliamentary system and its representatives don’t have trust, then they don’t have anything. Trust is the most important, most valuable factor in politics and in maintaining democracy. When people can’t mirror themselves in their parliamentarians, they will never feel fully represented, and trust can erode. This is particularly true for the European institutions, which are mostly run by older white men. This make-up doesn’t represent the EU in its entirety. It is a huge problem which is actually undermining democracy, something we can’t afford to do.

When people can’t mirror themselves in their parliamentarians, they will never feel fully represented, and trust can erode.

However, it’s important to recognise that there’s no quick fix for this. It takes years to change an institution and its make-up. As Greens, we also need to look at our own parties and organisations. Looking at the Green Party of Sweden, for example, I see that we have a problem with regards to diversity from the top down to our youth organisation. We ourselves must do our homework. We need to make sure that young people – no matter how well-off their parents are, where they live, which schools they go to – want to join political parties and become involved in politics. That means we must be better at reaching out to all people. 

The German Green Party, long considered a party of white academics, is planning to adopt a diversity statute which aims to ensure that minority groups are represented on all political bodies with a minimum rate equal to their representation in the general population. What do you think of such a proposal?

This is a great ambition and I’m proud that my sister party is setting such a goal. But this kind of proposal also demands a lot of work to ensure that competent people occupy these positions. That is key and here Greens can do better. Of course, being black can impart competence on certain issues, as can being a migrant. We need to understand that and take the time to identify the right people.

Apart from representation, what changes are needed to overturn structural racism in Sweden and the wider EU?

We need to use every tool at our disposal, including legislation at all levels. In a European context, a first step would be to unblock the anti-discrimination directive, which has been blocked in Council since 2008. Here, I have been appointed rapporteur. This directive aims to expand protection against discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, religion or belief and sexual orientation outside the labour market. In most member states, intersectional discrimination is not covered by national legislation. The directive remains a shameful symbol of the lack of political will to legislate on anti-discrimination from the side of the Council and the member states. It must be unblocked immediately. To this end, I expect the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to act and do her utmost to mobilise the Council during the German Presidency. The murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, and the worldwide protests that followed, send a clear message to politicans: the people demand action now.

The [anti-discrimination directive] remains a shameful symbol of the lack of political will to legislate on anti-discrimination from the side of the Council and the member states. It must be unblocked immediately.

https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/politics-for-change-black-lives-matter-in-europe/

 

 

Anti-Racist Politics in Practice: Greens and Black Lives Matter

Waves of protests against racism have spread globally in 2020. Sparked by police killings in the US, the movement has forced a conversation about racial inequality, representation, and colonialism into the public debate. Green parties are vocal advocates of racial justice, but does the rhetoric match the reality? Samir Jeraj spoke to Green activists of colour from across Europe to hear their perspectives on what Green parties need to do to build racial justice in the years and decades to come.

The death of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May, compounded by the rising number of deaths of people of colour from Covid-19, led to “Black Lives Matter” being echoed around the world. There has been a reckoning for many communities and institutions on their past and present actions on racism. Statues have fallen, experiences of racism in every organisation, profession and community have been shared. It remains to be seen whether there will be lasting change.

Green parties have traditionally been defenders of liberal values of racial equality and supporters of anti-racist struggles. But they too have their challenges with racism: strong rhetoric and policy about racism in society is often matched with lacklustre action. Compared to how Green parties successfully support, work with and integrate gender equality, LGBT rights, and even migrant rights movements, their work on racism falls short. Within parties, a very liberal denialism persists, often betrayed by the assumption that good people trying to do good things could not possibly be racist. But you only have to look at how racially and ethnically representative Green parties are to see there is a problem.

Within parties, a very liberal denialism persists, often betrayed by the assumption that good people trying to do good things could not possibly be racist.

Bringing practice in line with policy in Sweden

“Anti-racism politics is the reason why I wanted to become a member of the Greens in Sweden,” explains Aida Badeli, the co-chair of Young Greens Sweden. The traditionally left-leaning country is being challenged by Black Lives Matter activists on its record on race equality in employment, criminal justice, hate crime, and its role in colonialism and slavery [read more about structural racism in Sweden]. Nearly one in five Swedes voted for the far-right Swedish Democrats in the 2018 parliamentary elections.

In Aida’s experience, the Swedish Greens frequently discuss racism and discrimination. “The policy stuff for the Green party is really good,” she admits. However, the party remains “quite white” organisationally. She contends that this underrepresentation leads to people of colour being exoticised and makes the challenges faced by party members a low priority. “Representation matters,” she says, but she would also like to see the Swedish Greens take a more public and active role in anti-racism.

Within Green parties, people of colour can often feel isolated and unsupported, particularly when they are in a more public role: “I get threats and things like that and I often feel quite alone,” recounts Aida. She would like to see the Green party recognise that people of colour, particularly those in politics, are more vulnerable and need support, and to actively recruit and attract more people of colour.

Connecting social justice with racial equality in Germany

German Greens released a 10-point plan against racism which Sarah Heinrich, a Green Youth activist and federal executive member, thinks is “pretty good”. It calls for police reform, the creation of an anti-racist commissioner in the government, and instituting anti-racism education. However, Sarah feels this response does not link racial injustice with social insecurity enough: “We have to understand that to really better the situation of people of colour in Germany, we need more social security: better jobs, higher wages, lower rent. Because they are the ones who often live in precarious situations.”

Racism in Germany is on the rise. Statistics from the Anti-Discrimination Agency show a 10 per cent increase in cases in 2019. The country has also been rocked by far-right extremist attacks, such as the killing of ten people by the National Socialist Underground over a period of seven years, and recent revelations about far-right influence in the military and police.

Sarah wants social and anti-racism policies to be a greater priority alongside climate justice but is concerned that they would be undermined by going into coalitions with centre-right political parties. “To gain trust from people of colour in Germany, the Greens should stop thinking that Conservatives are good coalition partners,” she explains.

Institutional racism on the agenda in the Netherlands

Niels van de Berge, an MP with GroenLinks, is one of the people leading the party’s response to Black Lives Matter. Early on, he invited representatives from the movement into parliament. That led to a debate with the prime minister on institutional racism in the Netherlands. Racial profiling is widespread, ranging from the police to the tax office, private companies and banks who refuse people of colour mortgages. Young people of colour in particular struggle to access jobs and opportunities. The Netherlands also has its history of colonialism and slave-trading which underpins present-day institutional racism and is yet to be reckoned with.

“We’ve been trying to put [institutional racism] on the agenda for years,” says Niels. In the past, there had been strong resistance to discussing racial inequality: “people found it unnecessary. There were even people saying ‘institutional racism doesn’t exist in the Netherlands,’” says Niels. All of that has changed since the death of George Floyd, and he sees real momentum to tackle institutional racism. A cross-party meeting was held with representatives from the Black Lives Matter movement on what policy changes should be made, and GroenLinks will be working with them on their manifesto for the 2021 elections.

Ambitions and challenges for the European Greens

Carrie Hou worked as a digital campaigner for the European Green Party (EGP, the Green party at the European level), the first woman of colour to be employed by the organisation according to management. She had a background in anti-racism campaigns in Australia and came to Brussels to lead on digital organising for the 2019 European elections. Carrie was drawn to the job in part because the call for applicants was “hopeful”, “race-conscious”, and “class conscious”. She had never been a Green party member, having found the group at her university very white, middle class, and inaccessible.

In Brussels, a large multicultural city, Carrie was one of few people of colour working for a Brussels-based European institution. “A lot of us [people of colour] come from families where financial insecurity is such an intense thing,” she explains. This means huge pressure to find jobs and careers that offer security, and political campaigning is not one. “You have more emotional anxiety about something that most white people would really happily go into.”

Carrie found herself targeted by far-right and racist activists in her job. While her employers and co-workers responded sympathetically, she feels it was all very reactive. It also placed the burden of coming up with suitable policies and procedures to ensure her safety on her rather than on management: “I was both the victim, but I also had to be the one who was presenting solutions.” She feels this contributed to her burning out at the end of the campaign, describing it as “frustrating” and “telling” that institutional processes and policies were not in place.

A spokesperson from the EGP stressed their “strong political ambitions” on diversity and equality. They said, “These are political issues for which we are recognised as being the most forward-looking and progressive party, and our supporters and voters are expecting us to deliver.” They added that the EGP has a strong history of respecting workers’ rights, and added that the party tries to facilitate flexible working arrangements so that more people in different circumstances can work for them.

The impossible double hat on UK Greens of Colour

The UK has a long history of racist policing. Black Lives Matter protests have focused on both the number of black people who have died in police custody and from the pandemic, as the high number of deaths from Covid-19 reflects the deep racial inequalities in health, housing, and employment.

Asking a black woman to read over a motion in less than 24 hours, in the middle of an emotionally gruelling situation, does not address Black Lives Matter

Following the death of George Floyd, Azzees Minott, chair of the Greens of Colour group of the Green Party of England and Wales, was asked to work on the response to Black Lives Matter at a national and European level. This, she explains, meant having to comment and provide feedback with little notice or time. Asking a black woman to read over a motion in less than 24 hours, in the middle of an emotionally gruelling situation, does not address Black Lives Matter she says, adding “I’ve had to make this point several times.” She feels that self-reflection on how to put anti-racist values into practice is often missing, even when responding to Black Lives Matter.

Swiss Young Greens take the lead

Zurich has seen demonstrations with thousands of protestors. Racial profiling is a common concern and a significant part of the 30 per cent increase in racist incidents in 2019. Police brutality is also an issue in Switzerland. In 2018 Mike Ben Peter, a black man, died while being restrained. The Young Greens are campaigning to stop police reports from mentioning nationality, which they believe feeds xenophobia and stereotypes about particular communities.

The Swiss Green party has relatively few BiPoC (Black, Indigenous, People of Colour) members, which Maimuna Barry, a party member, believes makes it easy to avoid the issue internally. “Just because you are in a left-wing and ecologist party, it does not mean that you do not have racist structures in you.” Maimuna wants to see more interest from the Green party in anti-racism: “I want them to learn and listen to the few BiPoC’s in their party and encourage them to run for parliament. I want huge change.”

Confronting political underrepresentation

Green parties in Europe are taking some steps to address underrepresentation in their parties. The Green Party of England and Wales set up a fund in 2019 to support projects to improve representation of people of colour.[1] However, there are still challenges for the Green Party of England and Wales, an issue underlined by the fact that a former Equalities Spokesperson is in the process of suing the party for racial discrimination.

GroenLinks is working to recruit, encourage and support people of colour to become parliamentarians in next year’s elections, and has had some success in electing a diverse range of candidates in local government. While Niels believes the party fairs better than other parties in the Netherlands do, he feels they still have a long way to go to achieve greater representation and “stronger and more outspoken” participation in the anti-racist struggle.

[Green parties’] practice of anti-racist politics does not reflect the values of equality and equity which the movement is founded on, even if their policies do.

In response to the specific issue raised about the lack of people of colour in the EGP staff, the spokesperson said the party recognised the “structural obstacles” that prevent minorities from participating in politics, such as discrimination and financial barriers. They added that, “no one has found the perfect solution yet, but at least, and probably compared to other parties at least we consider it a real problem and are trying to break these obstacles step by step.”

One challenge is that political parties depend on large amounts of unpaid labour, hours of volunteering in campaigns and administering branches. Those in a position to do this boost their network and personal capital to advance a political career and have their ideas listened to, almost like how unpaid internships work in other industries. In politics, unpaid labour is an institutional barrier to people who cannot donate that time, which means they are less likely to be members, elected representatives or hired in jobs.

“For a person of colour, you need to think about what in society stops them joining your party, or working for your party, or doing voter outreach for your party,” says Carrie Hou. Until this changes and inclusive structures are put in place, it does not matter if a large number of people of colour join because they will leave again, and Green parties will be stuck in a cycle of a mostly white political and administrative leadership.

Breaking the cycle

Progressive parties in many countries have conceded racist arguments on immigration and crime while failing to address the underlying roots of racism, and others have maintained a complicit silence.

Green parties in Europe have a problem and they need to admit it. Their practice of anti-racist politics does not reflect the values of equality and equity which the movement is founded on, even if their policies do. People of colour in various Green parties have described different versions of this problem, whether it is about removing barriers to participation, putting things in place to ensure an environment that welcomes and supports people of colour, and making anti-racism a long-term priority rather than a value asserted reactively.

“Green parties must not lean back and think, ‘Well, we are left-wing, we can’t be racist’” cautions Maimuna Barry. She feels that her party has done relatively little to support Black Lives Matter, and the broader anti-racism struggle. Maimuna believes that Green politics is reduced to climate change and overlooks the fact that to protect the climate, “we need social justice and to smash racism.”

‘What the Green party needs is an institutionalised, procedural and structured way of tackling racism within the party at every single level […]’

Carrie Hou says, “What the Green party needs is an institutionalised, procedural and structured way of tackling racism within the party at every single level,” adding that a wealth of knowledge and examples of institutions doing this successfully already exists. It just requires the will to make it happen and the humbleness to admit there is an issue.

The constant messages and engagement that immediately followed the death of George Floyd have now dropped to nothing. “What happens after the images of protest stop being shown on the news? What do you do then?” asks Azzees Minott. She asserts, “That is the true test of how far we’re going to get.”

Azzees believes allies can play an important and positive role by actively supporting people of colour, making use of their skills, and sharing them to create change. “Allies in the UK and abroad fail to realise that, as much as racism is a structural, systemic and institutional matter that needs challenging, many problems come from individual behaviour.” She thinks we all need to ask ourselves individually “are my actions in good faith and in support of the Black Lives Matter movement?” and move into sustained action rather than responding intensely when something horrific happens and then do nothing after, which actually perpetuates the problem of racial inequality.

Anti-racist activism will rise with horrific and traumatic events such as the death of George Floyd but too often recedes as the old structures and cultures of oppression reassert themselves. The rise of far-right parties, hate crimes and discourse is built on top of these structural inequalities. People are more concerned than ever about racial equality, and while the protests may stop, now is the time to commit to a long-term fight for racial justice.

FOOTNOTES

[1] The author is a board member of the fund.

https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/anti-racist-politics-in-practice-the-greens-and-black-lives-matter/

Rally Around the Flag? The Far-Right Response to Covid-19

Europe’s far-right parties such as Alternative für Deutschland, the Lega and the Swedish Democrats have all struggled to find a message amid the pandemic. However, things might be changing. As populations tire of lockdowns and fear for their livelihoods, these parties are attempting to harness discontent and speak for “the people”. While some hope that scientific truths will win out against populist lies, the prominent place given to experts could produce a backlash. Ultimately the social and economic consequences of government measures will be decisive for the future of far-right populism.

The coronavirus pandemic has brought huge changes to all corners of the world. Daily life has been fundamentally transformed; working conditions, social events and international travel have all been disrupted. Besides the profound economic and social transformations in the wake of a global health crisis, how has the political landscape been affected? How have political parties fared? What has been the response of the far-right populist parties, who might have been expected to appreciate the closed borders? Six months ago, these parties were poised to make sweeping electoral gains. Before the pandemic, a populist surge was regarded by some as almost inevitable due to deep structural changes across Europe and the lack of political alternatives. An important question today is whether the coronavirus pandemic has dampened this surge or whether, on the contrary, it will provide it with new fuel.

Though there is good reason to be wary of sweeping generalisations and simplistic assumptions often made about populism in general, and right-wing populism in particular, it is worth comparing these parties in order to understand the variations and commonalities of far-right populism. Broadly speaking, populism works by championing “the people”, who are distinguished in populist discourse from “elites” or the “establishment”.[1] While left-wing populism makes the people an inclusive category, the populism of the far right constructs them in exclusive and ethnic terms, and distinguishes them from an unresponsive elite as well as from immigrants.[2]

Perhaps unsurprisingly in a war-like situation, we have witnessed what is referred to as a “rally around the flag” effect: many leaders and parties of governments have seen an increase in their approval ratings.

This division has apparently been difficult to maintain over recent months. Perhaps unsurprisingly in a war-like situation, we have witnessed what is referred to as a “rally around the flag” effect: many leaders and parties of governments have seen an increase in their approval ratings. This has made it difficult for far-right populist opposition parties to find and assert a strong message. And indeed, as Cas Mudde points out, “Populist parties and politicians have responded very differently, in part depending upon whether they are in government or opposition. They are also faced with very different contexts, both in terms of number of infections and control of the media.” Things might be changing. As populations tire of lockdowns and fear for their livelihoods, these parties are attempting to harness discontent and speak for the people against what is construed as hostile government policy.

This certainly seems to be the case with three far-right parties: the Italian Lega, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in Germany, and the Swedish Democrats (SD). These parties have had striking electoral successes over recent years. They have acted very differently in response to the coronavirus-induced crisis but they all seem to struggle to carve out an appealing message and a strong identity during the pandemic. Currently, these parties are all continuing to construct national government policy as illegitimate and damaging. What is most pertinently revealed in our comparison is that this indictment is made regardless of government response to the crisis. Whether the strategy is to enforce a lock-down or resist it, populist parties construct a division between the people and the “other” by exploiting the coronavirus crisis.

Whether the strategy is to enforce a lock-down or resist it, populist parties construct a division between the people and the “other” by exploiting the coronavirus crisis.

Wavering message, wavering support

The Italian Lega, led by Matteo Salvini, is certainly not letting up on its populist framing of the crisis. With slogans such as “let’s close our borders”, the Lega is notorious for connecting immigration to insecurity as well as promoting the fining and expulsion of migrants. The Lega connected the Covid-19 virus directly to immigration from the outset. According to Salvini, the “terrible virus” was “spreading from China”. Note that in his discourse, the specific characteristics of the migrant might have changed (they no longer come from Africa but from Asia), but the construction and blaming of a foreign other has not.

During the first months of the lockdown, this anti-immigration discourse seemed to be completely out of touch with reality. First of all, due to the lockdown, NGO rescue boats had effectively ceased to operate, resulting in a sharp decline of people reaching Italy. Secondly, concerns over fresh food shortages, created by the disruption of the influx of legal seasonal workers, has sparked an acknowledgement of the importance of illegal immigrants for Italy’s agricultural sector.

Up until now at least, Salvini’s messages have largely fallen flat. Part of the reason may be that the lively rallies, where the Lega thrives most, are now banned under social distancing rules. Another may be that he has promoted inconsistent messages and flip-flopped. In February, Salvini argued that the Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte was not doing enough but by July, he began touting that the prime minister was doing too much. Now Salvini is pronouncing the lockdown as unnecessary and harmful to the Italian people: “keeping them terrified, distanced and locked up is an attack on our democracy and our economy.” Although the Lega remains Italy’s strongest party, with 26 per cent share of the national voting intention, it has slipped in the polls. Yet it is important to acknowledge this slip as not indicating a weakening of the far right in Italy, but rather shifts of popularity within the country. The Lega has lost 10 per cent to the post-fascist party Fratelli d’Italia (FdI), turning its leader and Salvini’s most important ally, Giorgia Meloni, into a potential rival.

Germany’s struggling far right

The challenge for the far right in Germany has not been to maintain a consistent message but rather to find one in the first place. Like the Lega, the AfD is overtly populist. Consider its 2017 manifesto in which the party publicised its wish to: “maintain our language and traditions in a peaceful, democratic, and sovereign nation state for the German people” since “Germany’s political class has exploited and modified election laws and procedures with increasing cunningness in order to reduce the influence of the electorate.” It also targets migrants, in particular Muslims (established Muslim communities are targeted too), unambiguously declaring that “Islam does not belong to Germany. Its expansion and the ever-increasing number of Muslims in the country are viewed by the AfD as a danger to our state, our society, and our values.”

[…] while the stringent travel restrictions and strict border controls fit within the far-right discourse, the enactment of such policies has deprived the AfD of a distinctive position.

The problem for the AfD since the pandemic, however, has been that the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has been widely credited with effectively managing the crisis. Her party, the Christian Democrats, has seen the most noticeable increase in support in Europe. And this simply does not fit with the AfD’s populist insinuation that elected elites do not serve the German people. So while the stringent travel restrictions and strict border controls fit within the far-right discourse, the enactment of such policies has deprived the AfD of a distinctive position.

In general, the leadership of the party has been quite subdued throughout 2020, and the party has slipped to 10 per cent of the national voting intention. The pandemic came at a time when the party was already dealing with internal division and party infighting. The party has a radical far-right wing (known as “the wing”) which was formally dissolved in late March 2020, after the German domestic intelligence agency deemed it a potential threat to the constitution and put it under surveillance. In addition, prominent figures in the party have been pushed out due to their former membership in a banned neo-Nazi group.

But the formal dissolution of the wing has clearly done nothing to stop some of its members from questioning the reality of the global health crisis: various prominent party figures and former wing members have publicly referred to the “alleged corona crisis” while one posted a “checklist” to distinguish a pandemic from a “fake pandemic”. Prominent wing activists have also been active in the so-called “Hygiene Demonstrations” which have drawn thousands of people in cities across Germany to protest the government’s coronavirus policy. Protestors blame Jews and immigrant communities for the spread of Covid-19 in Germany.

These responses have begun to dominate the public impression of the AfD’s current position, and party leaders are concerned that the connection of members to neo-fascist groups, conspiracy theorists and anti-vaccination activists will alienate more moderate conservative voters. The coronavirus has therefore exposed the cleavage between the national-conservative party mainstream and the marginalised far-right wing – a divide that may, according to former party leader Alexander Gauland, actually end with the dissolution of the party.

The coronavirus has […] exposed the cleavage between the national-conservative party mainstream and the marginalised far-right wing – a divide that may, according to former party leader Alexander Gauland, actually end with the dissolution of the party.

Swedish exceptionalism, one step too far for populists

In contrast to both Italy and Germany, countries that have been experiencing strict lockdown policies, Sweden has kept its schools, restaurants and borders open. Its exceptional approach to the pandemic has been defended as entirely in line with science. The Swedish Minister for Health and Social Affairs Lena Hallengren stated: “All countries do the best they can, but so far there is no one who knows exactly how to best deal with this virus”. Swedish health experts have been given priority over advice from the World Health Organization (WHO), especially since their strategy is considered more in line with cultural particularities of the Scandinavian country.

This has left the far-right SD in a difficult position. Over the last decade, they have sharply increased their share of the vote to 20 per cent. Their unambiguously populist and ethnic-majoritarian discourse constructs an ethnically homogenous Swedes as antagonised by immigrant-friendly and politically correct elites. In order to oppose the Swedish government, the SD not only decries the relatively high mortality rate resulting from Sweden’s solo run a “massacre”, but they also urge the government to fall in line with the “international consensus”. This is an odd situation: the Swedish government’s strategy on the coronavirus crisis is based on highlighting the country’s exceptionalism and, of all parties, the SD is advocating the adoption of international blueprints.

No time for a victory lap

What can be concluded from the comparison of the three parties? Despite operating in different political landscapes and coping with their own issues, these parties have, nevertheless, continued to maintain a populist division between the people and the other (discursively constructed as immigrants and elites). Until recently, this has not resonated with publics. Commentators have observed that, so far, the far right might well be floundering in opposition while those in power are also struggling. However, this may well not be the case for much longer. Far-right populist parties are using the crisis to continue to divide the people from others: immigrants, foreigners, and social and political elites. As Yannis Stavrakakis and Giorgos Katsambekis note in an important recent report, crises are often seen as particularly opportune moments for the exaggeration of social and political divisions. The unevenly distributed effects not only of the virus itself, but of the strategies to tackle it, create an environment ripe for far-right populism.

The unevenly distributed effects not only of the virus itself, but of the strategies to tackle it, create an environment ripe for far-right populism.

Whether populist messages strike a chord with voters in the near future may well hinge on the way the forthcoming economic turbulence and uncertainty is handled. The potential of far-right parties to speak to popular discontent will depend upon the extent to which government responses to the crisis are seen to be legitimate, representative and democratic. This applies not only to the national and regional but also the European level. The general lack of coordination between EU institutions and the bitter negotiations between the member states on post-pandemic relief efforts may have opened the opportunity to reinforce the far-right populist divisions between national peoples and European elites. FdI leader Meloni, for example, directly accused the European Commission president of bias: “When the coronavirus was just an Italian problem it didn’t interest anyone in the European Union. When we had the first red zones in Lombardy, Ursula von der Leyen was with Greta Thunberg. They only did things when the virus arrived in Germany.”

Some believe that the recent struggles of the far right can be seen as a result of the triumph of scientific truth and rational decision making. They claim that people have finally realised that in a crisis what is needed is expertise rather than the conspiracy theories, shocking exaggerations, blatant mistruths, and the entertaining antics of certain populist parties. However, these claims downplay the impact that developments in the upcoming months will have on public opinion of government policies, and the fact that the privileged role of scientists in political decision-making is in danger of being anti-democratic.

Any claim to epistemic authority, in the face of an unknown virus especially, can be challenged.

Politicians have relied upon the “epistemic authority” of medical experts, which has not only been a valuable resource during the pandemic but has allowed them to shift responsibility for stringent measures. However, any attempt to delegate policymaking to experts is likely to further justify populist backlash against professional elites. Any claim to epistemic authority, in the face of an unknown virus especially, can be challenged. Politicians have to choose experts from a large pool of trained professionals leaving plenty of room for criticising a particular choice. Moreover, different experts can deliver diverging or even directly contradictory advice.

The distinct path taken by Sweden illustrates that scientific evidence can be interpreted in various ways; in a context of uncertainty created by a health crisis, the prior scientific knowledge available is often deficit. To be democratically valid, a decision must not only be based on expertise but on genuine political debate between real alternatives. Governance of the pandemic should not only be a matter of following the science, but of sustaining a tangible commitment to economic equality, social justice and political discussion. If not, Europe might well witness a renewed surge of far-right populism.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Stavrakakis, Y. and Katsambekis, G., 2020. Populism and the pandemic: A collaborative report. Available at: < https://bit.ly/2Rc9kll > [Accessed 10 Sep. 2020].

[2] Ruth Wodak (2015). The politics of fear: what right-wing populist discourses mean. London : SAGE Publications Ltd.

https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/rally-around-the-flag-the-far-right-response-to-covid-19/

The CDC Finally Acknowledged That The Coronavirus Can Spread Through Air

The premier health agency's update comes less than two weeks after a similar guidance was added and then deleted from its website.

Posted on October 5, 2020,

Pool / Getty Images
CDC director Robert Redfield at a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on September 23.

Officials at the CDC said Monday that the coronavirus can spread via particles in the air, a long-delayed acknowledgment of what is increasingly seen as a key form of virus transmission.

On Monday, a new section added to a CDC webpage called "How COVID-19 Spreads" stated that "COVID-19 can sometimes be spread by airborne transmission."

The update stated that infections can occur as a result of viruses present in small droplets suspended in the air for minutes to hours. "These viruses may be able to infect people who are further than 6 feet away from the person who is infected or after that person has left the space," the agency's guidance says.

The addition comes less than two weeks after a similar guidance was posted and then abruptly removed from the website, raising concerns of possible political interference. In response to the incident, the CDC's webpage was updated to say that "a draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error."

The new guidance comes months after scientists began pushing the world's top health officials to acknowledge the growing consensus that the virus could be spread via small particles in the air. In July, the World Health Organization issued a scientific finding that indicated that airborne transmission was possible, suggesting the virus could spread in large crowds and indoors in poorly ventilated buildings.

The CDC's new guideline follows similar lines, citing documented instances of transmission in "poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise."

Scientists welcomed Monday's long-awaited update from the CDC. Jose-Luis Jimenez, a chemistry professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, told BuzzFeed News that it was "a move in the right direction."

The bottom line is that "we can get infected if we breathe someone else’s exhaled air," he said. "We have to think that everyone we cross that’s not in our bubble, they're exhaling smoke, like a smoker. How we reduce contagion is breathing as little of that 'smoke' as possible."

Jimenez added that he found some of the language confusing: The CDC makes reference to "small droplets" and "particles," whereas he said that the more precise scientific term would be "aerosols." He also thought that the agency's description of airborne transmission "sometimes" happening likely understated its frequency.

The CDC's change comes as a large cluster of COVID-19 cases spreads in the White House, tied to large, unmasked outdoor gatherings and indoor events.

Scientists have also expressed concerns that such guidance did not come earlier due to political interference. In May, the Washington Post reported that the White House forced the CDC to remove guidelines suggesting that the virus could spread via choirs and music ensembles in religious gatherings. The White House has also interfered with other CDC guidance, most notably on the ability of the virus to spread from children.

The new CDC guidance indicates that close contact with a person who has been infected is still believed to be the primary route of infection.

MORE ON THIS
The CDC Removed A New Guidance About Airborne Coronavirus Transmission Days After Posting It

Dan Vergano · Sept. 21, 2020

The WHO Is Now Saying The Coronavirus Can Be Transmitted In The Air

Salvador Hernandez · July 10, 2020

America’s “Patchwork Pandemic” Is Why We Haven’t Gotten COVID-19 Under Control

Peter Aldhous · Sept. 26, 2020


Azeen Ghorayshi is a science editor for BuzzFeed News and is based in New York.

Stephanie M. Lee is a science reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in San Francisco.