Europe’s established left is facing the threat of extinction. In less than two years, the continent’s social-democratic parties have suffered historic losses in France, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy. On a continent long defined by democratic competition between center-right and center-left parties, the collapse of the left could have far-reaching consequences, beyond particular party interests.
Many factors underlie the left’s decline, including the dissolution of the traditional working class.
However, one of the most important reasons is as grim as it is simple: European voters are increasingly opposed to immigration and do not trust the left to limit it.
Faced with a sustained influx of refugees and migrants, primarily from the Middle East and Africa, European voters have transformed a series of recent elections into popular referenda on immigration. Right-wing populist movements have skillfully played on blue-collar voters’ fears by convincing them that traditional labor parties would allow immigrants to flow in virtually unchecked.
In April, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban won a landslide election victory after running a campaign that focused on the “threat” to “Christian values” supposedly posed by Muslim immigrants. Italy’s new anti-establishment coalition government was propelled to power by the popularity of the staunchly anti-immigrant League party, led by Matteo Salvini, who is now minister of the interior and deputy prime minister.
In Slovenia, former prime minister Janez Jansa’s right-wing opposition party secured just less than 25 percent of the vote in this month’s parliamentary election, meaning that Jansa is to form the country’s next government.
When right-wing populists first started gaining political traction, Europe’s center-left parties hoped that their traditional strengths would enable them to weather the challenge.
To avoid unwittingly strengthening right-wing narratives, center-left campaigners attempted to shift public debate toward their ideological comfort zone: unemployment, inequality and social justice. The German Social Democratic Party (SPD) based its entire election campaign last year on the slogan “It’s time for more justice.”
Yet defeat after painful defeat has driven center-left parties to a stark realization: Voters who are concerned primarily with immigration are not going to be won over with calls for equality.
In Germany, the coalition government (comprising the SPD, the Christian Democratic Union, and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union) is embroiled in a bitter fight over immigration that threatens the survival of the coalition.
While the SPD aims for a European solution and rejects sealing Germany’s borders, party leader Andrea Nahles called for accelerated asylum procedures that would enable authorities to conclude asylum applications from safe third countries within one week.
Last month, Nahles launched the debate within the SPD when, seemingly echoing right-wing rhetoric, she said that Germany “cannot accept all.”
Some in the SPD’s leadership and its youth wing were up in arms. Yet Nahles has doubled down on her stance, publicly endorsing a critical analysis, compiled by a board of independent observers, of last year’s election defeat.
That report identified “the lack of a consistent social-democratic position” on migration issues as one of the party’s structural weaknesses.
The Social Democratic Party of Austria has taken its shift on immigration further. The party leadership has presented a new platform, to be officially endorsed later this year, that formally redefines the party’s position as “pro-integration,” as opposed to pro-migration.
While the platform does refer to the country’s “humanitarian responsibilities,” it also demands “functioning protection” of the EU’s external borders.
The criticism highlights a key challenge. On one level, social democrats’ immigration shift is a necessary response to voter demand. Efforts to limit or manage migration are not necessarily based on racism or xenophobia. The key is to ensure that policy responses remain morally acceptable.
At the same time, too drastic a change could be self-defeating for struggling center-left parties. They clearly cannot copy the crude nativist recipes of the radical right, which would not only be economically counterproductive, but would also fly in the face of progressive values, alienating cosmopolitan supporters.
Instead, Europe’s center-left parties should strike a balance between national and international solidarity with a three-pronged strategy comprising effective limits on immigration, a focus on integration and humanitarian efforts to ease large-scale human suffering.
Such an approach would eschew incendiary rhetoric, and instead offer real, forward-thinking and morally sustainable solutions that are not populist, but certainly can be popular.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has embraced this approach, as has French President Emmanuel Macron.
Struggling center-left parties across Europe should follow suit, recognizing that such a repositioning might well be the key to political survival.
Michael Broning is head of the international policy department of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, a political foundation affiliated with the Social Democratic Party of Germany.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with