Meloni's English Ban: An analysis into Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni's proposed legislation to fine foreign languages

In March of 2023 the party of Italian Prime Minister, Girogia Meloni, proposed introducing a new piece of legislation that would seek to address the growing issue of the dominance of the English language across Italy and the issue of Anglomania (the obsession with English customs), all in hopes of countering growing fears over the loss of Italian language and culture. The legislation proposes fines of up to 100,000 euros on public and private entities using foreign vocabulary in their official communications and requiring all company job titles to be spelled out in the official local language. 

Meloni’s new legislation seeks to address what her party sees as key cultural issues affecting Italian society. On the surface level, the legislation is an attack against EU integrationist policy and an attempt to promote Italian cultural power. Although this legislation may seem both amusing and bizarre from an outside lens, its implications, both politically and socially, could be tremendous. Only through placing this language ban in the context of Meloni’s immigration policies can we understand the greater intent; Meloni’s legislation is a direct threat towards Italy’s growing immigrant population, who often lack Italian language skills and can often only hope to communicate with Italian government officials in a shared second language, English. 

Italy’s changing image 

At its core, Meloni’s legislation reveals a growing fear and frustration brought on by fear over losing Italian cultural identity and frustration with the English language's dominance across all sectors. 

Like their fellow EU neighbors, Italy has struggled in recent decades to come to terms with its new multi-cultural identity, brought on by increases in immigration and participation in international communities and systems. Italy’s recent immigrant population is largely dominated by migrants and refugees from Eastern Europe and Northern Africa. Non-white Italians report a level of discrimination and isolation despite spending decades in the country. Michelle Ngonmo, a Black Italian fashion designer stated that “there is a real struggle between the people-of-color Italians and [white] Italian society. Asian Italians, Black Italians are really struggling to be accepted as Italians.”

The changing demographics of Italy reflect a country grappling with its newfound cultural identity. While many have embraced the tide of immigration as both a benefit and reality of globalization, Meloni’s political party has deliberately ignited anti-immigrant spirit. 

The Brother’s of Italy

Meloni leads the Brother’s of Italy party (Fratelli d'Italia), a nationalist and conservative far-right party that has its roots in neofascism. After co-founding the party in 2012, she led the party through a series of political victories, eventually emerging as the preeminent far-right party in Italy. 

Similar to other far-right parties across the continent, such as the National Rally in France or the UKIP party of the UK, the Brother’s of Italy embodies many populist values and policies, including anti-globalization efforts, xenophobia, and an emphasis on national unity and heritage. However, the Brother’s of Italy has deeper roots in historical notions of facism, tracing back to the first postwar Italian neo fascist party known as the Italian Social Movement (Movimento Sociale Italiano or MSI, which existed from 1946 to 1995) as well as the Salò Republic which was known for its Nazi-origins. The predecessors behind the Brother’s of Italy party reveal a political party that is steeped in decades of fascist theory. Meloni was a member of the MSI youth party in the early 90s that became known for its far-right magazine, Fare Fronte and adoption of French far-right ideals. Political upheaval and turmoil caused by political corruption scandals across Italian politics led to the end of the MSI in 1995, but elements of the party continued.

Meloni’s rise to power

The well known youth party transformed into Azione Giovani (Young Action) which was at this point associated with the Alleanza Nazionale (National Alliance party or AN) the successor of the MSI. Meloni held a position on the youth leadership committee which led her into politics. At age 19 she was filmed praising fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini, as an example of strong leadership in Italian politics. 

 She was elected as Councilor for the Province of Rome in 1998 which she held for four years. She continued to develop her political career by becoming the youngest Vice President to the Chamber of Deputies in 2006. Her experience in far-right youth organizations led her to become the Minister of Youth under the fourth Berlusconi government. Then in 2012, she founded the Brother’s of Italy party alongside fellow politicians, Ignazio La Russa and Guido Crosetto. Throughout Italy’s rocky political climate of the 90s and 2000s, Meloni positioned herself as a politician loyal to far-right causes, but also able to adapt to contemporary political climates. 

In a speech from 2021, Meloni identified her far-right values, saying, “Yes to the natural family, no to the LGBT lobby, yes to sexual identity, no to gender ideology... no to Islamist violence, yes to secure borders, no to mass migration... no to big international finance... no to the bureaucrats of Brussels!”

Meloni has routinely denied that her party has any connection with fascism; she has denounced Mussolini and his reign of fascist terror in speeches, citing Mussolini’s racial laws as one of the darkest points in Italian history. However, her latest proposed legislation to restrict the use of English and promote Italian reveals Meloni’s nationalistic approach to uniting the Italian people as well as a denial of Italy’s multiculturalism. 

Contemporary fascism

Meloni’s political career has flirted with fascism from the beginning. We can witness it in her blatant statements of support for Mussolini as a young youth leader, but also in the inherent nature of her political positioning in parties rooted in fascism. Meloni’s critics are quick to call her a fascist or “fascist-adjacent” for her political remarks, her friendship with Hungary’s authoritarian leader, Viktor Orbán, and her ultraconservative values. Although these points are all valid and true, they do not actually threaten Meloni’s political standing or reputation, but instead allow her to counter the remarks and paint her opponents and critics as irrational left-wing radicals. Meloni simply has to deny her associations with fascism, something she has done on numerous occasions, such as during her pro-EU speech following her inauguration in which she also spoke out against Italy’s fascist past. International attention on Meloni’s fascist roots has shifted attention away from the real danger of her ultra-conservative politics, which intend to restore traditional Italian values and relies on tactics of alienation and discrimination.  

Anglomania 

Meloni has stated that her proposed legislation is an attempt to protect Italian national identity, which she sees as weakened by the dominance of English as the international language of business and politics. It is true that English has become the lingua franca of the world, dominating arenas such as international institutions, cultural interests, and educational institutions. However the bill does not only call for the ban of English but words from all foreign languages in businesses. The legislation also called for university classes that are “not specifically aimed at teaching a foreign language” should only be taught in Italian, thus preventing the likelihood of English-speaking classes taking precedence. Yet Meloni’s legislation makes it clear that her desire to protect Italy’s cultural heritage is rooted in populist and far-right xenophobia.

Foreign residents make up around 9% of Italy's population. Italy is also home to the third largest migrant population in Europe, following the migrant crisis of the past decade. The change in population has brought varying forms of anti-immigration sentiment. Meloni has been at the forefront of the movement during her political campaign and time in office. Her first act of anti-immigration legislation in November of 2022 attempted to prevent adult male asylum seekers from entering the country. Italy’s interior minister, Matteo Piantedosi, claimed that the reason behind this policy was that these people are “residual cargo,” unworthy of being rescued and Meloni referred to recent immigrants to Italy as “ethnic substitution,” implying that ethnic Italians are in danger simply from their population’s change in ethnic and racial diversity. 

Meloni’s proposed language ban must be understood in the context of her prior legislation and political  viewpoints; this is more than a critique of the dominance of the English language and the promotion of Italian culture. Meloni’s ban is a threat to all immigrants and foreign-born Italians as a sign of Italy’s growing preference for an homogenous ethnic population and anti-immigration policies.

The Future of Climate Policy for Brazil and the United States after Bolsonaro and Trump

On October 30th, 2022, former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva beat incumbent Jair Bolsonaro in the Brazilian presidential election. It was a close election, with Lula getting 50.9% of the vote and Bolsonaro getting 49.1%. Bolsonaro had a turbulent and divisive one-term presidency with attacks on the democratic institutions in Brazil, improper COVID-19 policies which left 700,000 citizens dead, unfounded claims of voter fraud in the most recent presidential election, and telling his supporters to take to the street in protest. Now, if you think that this all sounds familiar, you are right. Former United States president, Donald Trump, also had quite a divisive and controversial presidential term that has similarities to Bolsonaro’s in terms of ideologies and policies. However, one of the most impactful and important ways that these two conservative presidents were similar was their climate and environmental policies. The two almost seemed to copy and bounce off each other with such matching policies and rollbacks. Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro have similar degradation of environmental policies such as wanting to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords and dismantling their federal environmental agencies, the EPA and the MMA. However, now that both countries’ recent elections have ousted both the right-wing presidents, Biden and Lula are now cutting back on conservative climate policy to try to fill the gap.

The Paris Climate Accords

What exactly are the Paris Climate Accords? Put simply, they are a legally binding international treaty concerning climate change. In December 2015, world leaders came together at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France because they agreed that climate change is a global emergency that all the countries of the world need to concern themselves with. The agreement that they came up with a set of long-term goals for the 194 countries in attendance. The agreement’s main goals were to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, limit the Earth’s temperature rise to 1.5C, review countries’ commitments to cutting emissions every five years, and provide financial aid to developing countries who need help financing environmental policies. Every five years, each country is expected to submit a climate action plan to the United Nations. In that plan should be the actions they plan to take to meet the agreed upon long-terms of the Paris Agreement, which are mandatory. This plan lets countries chart their own course on how they contribute to fighting climate change that best suits them. This will spark a huge economic boom for the rest of the century. There are greener jobs everywhere now, from the manufacturing of electric cars and the installation of solar panels. Not only will this plan help fight global climate change but it will also help the global economy. So why then, did Trump and Bolsonaro want to withdraw their countries from the Paris Climate Accords? In 2017, not even two years after the agreement was signed by the United States, Trump announced that the United States will withdraw from the agreement. In a press statement from the State Department that came out in November 2019, it stated that the US would withdraw from the accords because of “its unfair economic burden imposed on American workers, businesses, and taxpayers by the US pledges made under the Agreement.” It also claimed that the United States does not need the help or regulations of the UN because they have already been reducing emissions and ensuring the citizen’s access to affordable energy options. However, it promised to continue to work with other countries to react to the effects and impacts of climate change. Others believe that Trump pulled out of this agreement because it would be popular with his voters and supporters, who work in the fossil fuel industries.The US now represents around 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, it remains the world's biggest and most powerful economy. So, when they are the only country so far to withdraw from this agreement, it raises a global problem of trust and responsibility.

Bolsonaro’s presidency

Early on in Bolsonaro’s presidential campaign, he said that he wanted to withdraw Brazil from the Paris Agreement. Just before the election, Bolsonaro changed his plan saying that he would keep Brazil in for now but only if certain conditions were met. While his mind kept changing about this particular agreement, he was dead-set on pulling out of others, such as the 2019 United Nations Climate Conference (COP25) and Brazil’s 2015 carbon emissions education pledge. In 2018, Bolsonaro said that Brazil would remain in the agreement if someone could give him a written guarantee that there would be no “Triple A” project and no “independence of any indigenous area” Triple A is a proposal of an NGO from Colombia for some protected areas between the Andes and the Atlantic. Bolsonaro thought that this proposal is a conspiracy to take the Amazon rainforest away from Brazil. When he referred to the “independence of indigenous areas,” what he really meant was foreign governments are trying to get indigenous communities to declare independence from Brazil so that those governments can take the Amazon as their own. While Bolsonaro eventually scraped his pledge to withdraw from the agreement, and the US remains the only country to actually do so, this could have set a dangerous precedent for other powerhouse countries to leave the agreement as well, effectively nullifying it.

Comparing Trump’s environmental policies to Bolsonaro

Trump and Bolsonaro also had similar plans to defund or dismantle their federal environmental agencies, for the US, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and in Brazil, the Ministry of the Environment (MMA). In the US, the Administrators of the EPA were deep in scandal and controversy. The first one was Scott Pruitt, a senator from Oklahoma, who was a fossil fuel industry enthusiast and had a disdain for climate science. He supported Trump in his rollbacks of the EPA regulation on multiple different issues. Trump signed an executive order in 2017 that would lift bans on federal leasing for coal, lifts restrictions on the production of oil, natural gas, coal, and shale, returns the power of such regulation to the states, and a re-evaluation of the Clean Power Plan. This is Obama’s signature climate policy which intended to cut 32% of power plant emissions by replacing coal with renewable energy. This plan only works if the EPA has regulation power of carbon pollution regulations. However, under Trump, this was not going to happen. If these carbon pollution regulations do not happen, the American people, especially the poor and people of color will suffer from it. There is also something called the Waters of US Rule, which Trump also wanted to eliminate. This was passed by the EPA in 2015 to include smaller streams in the Clean Water Act that could provide drinking water to a third of Americans, especially some in rural areas where access to clean drinking water is sparse. If the EPA’s ability to regulate the Clean Power Plan and the companies that produce fossil fuels, we could have a global climate crisis on our hands. Bolsonaro has used similar tactics to dismantle his federal environmental agency, the Ministry of the Environment (MMA). In 2019, he announced that he would be stripping the environment ministry’s authority over regulations in the forestry and water agency, which is a big problem since the Amazon rainforest is included in that description. Critics of this decision said that the lack of clear directives to fight against climate change is not allowing Brazil to meet its commitments to cut greenhouse gasses, which Bolsonaro has already done. Environmentalists at the time feared that since the ministry does not have as much regulatory power, deforestation in the Amazon will increase. In addition, in 2020, his government published 195 acts, ordinances, decrees, and other measures which would continually dismantle Brazil’s environmental laws. These acts would allow those who illegally deforested and occupied conserved areas of the Amazon to receive full amnesty for their crimes. Also, the supervision of fisheries was being relaxed so this could increase the illegal trafficking of tropical fish. These acts have also led to the firing of specialized agency heads and the hiring of personnel with little to no experience in environmental management. Under Bolsonaro, the Amazon rainforest has suffered an increase in deforestation rates. Brazil was once the standard for environmental conservation since they have a rainforest, whose protection is necessary for survival on Earth. However, since Bolsonaro took office in 2019, he stripped enforcement measures of the MMA, cut funding for the MMA, fired environmental experts and replaced them with personnel with little to no experience, and weakened indigenous land rights. There have been many forest fires and criminal activity such as illegal logging due to the MMA’s inability to enforce its regulations and protections. In the first three years of his being in office, the Amazon had lost 8.4 million acres, which just for context, is the same size as the entire country of Belgium. It is a 52 percent increase from the deforestation rates from previous years. In 2021, 17% of the whole rainforest had been destroyed. There are estimations that if that number reaches 20 to 25 percent, it could threaten millions of people and animals whose lives depend on the rainforest.

The new presidents and their policies: Biden and Lula

However powerless we feel as individuals about the inevitability of climate change, there is hope for the United States and Brazil in their new leaders. Both new presidents have promised to undo a lot of the policies, cuts, and setbacks to the environment from the last administrations. In the 2022 Brazilian presidential election, many felt that the Amazon’s fate was at stake. Lula has pledged to protect the Amazon and is the ‘greenest’ candidate that ran in the election. He was president also in 2003 and he often points to his track record during that term to show that he can succeed in his plans. He started enforcing a policy called the Forest Code which got many government agencies to work together to decrease deforestation. When Lula was in power, deforestation fell dramatically by 80%. Since Lula’s win of the office only occurred a short while ago, we can only look at his past performance to see if he will hold to his future promises to reduce deforestation. In the United States, the same environmental promises were made by Joe Biden when he was elected. Since Biden has been in office since 2020, we can look to see how the promises he made during his campaigns have fared. Biden has started protecting land that was opened to drilling. Trump approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, which invaded Native American and farming land. He also opened up federally managed land and ocean for oil and gas drilling. Biden, however, has halted oil and gas leasing, reserved land and ocean drilling for oil and gas, and blocked the Keystone pipelines. In addition, Biden has started enforcing environmental regulations again. Trump allowed businesses that polluted to not be prosecuted by the federal government for any broken environmental laws. Biden has started cracking down on pursuing and prosecuting polluters while also suing fossil fuel companies for the climate damage they have caused. He restored flood protection standards, revoked the executive order that made it harder for agencies to issue environmental rules, and reserved the requirement to reduce climate considerations when assessing the impact of a project. All that being said, the future of the environment and the impact of climate change will be decided in the next few years. All we can do as individuals are elect the officials with the Earth’s best interests in mind and hopefully, the policies being created now will help prevent irreversible damage further down the line.

The Rise of the Far-Right in France: Understanding How National Rally Leader, Marine Le Pen, Has Used Tragedy of Recent Terrorist Attacks as a Political Weapon

In 2015, France was rocked by six deadly terrorist attacks, mostly notably the Charlie Hebdo attack and the November 13-14 attacks, that etched a permanent mark onto the nation’s psyche. Yet five years later, the effects of terrorism continue to plague France, demonstrated by the recent beheading of Samuel Paty, a french school teacher killed for showing his students a depiction of the prophet Muhommad in class, and the stabbings in a church in Nice just days later. 

Samuel Paty was a dedicated school teacher in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine who taught at a middle school in a suburb of Paris. Paty taught a class on freedom of speech and expression to his middle school students. During one of these lessons, he showed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad created by the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Following this lesson, parents at the school expressed disapproval towards Paty’s actions, and posts on various social media sites were created to discuss Paty’s behaviour. Abdoullakh Abouyedovich Anzorov was an eighteen year old Muslim Russian refugee who learned of Paty’s actions through social media, and beheaded him with in the street. After murdering Paty, Anzorov was shot and killed by police. As a result of Paty’s murder, over ten people have been charged in connection to the crime. 

However, now France finds itself in a new predicament. As French President, Emmanuel Macron, struggles to hold the country together amidst both the COVID-19 pandemic and recent terrorist attacks, France’s political far-right is pursuing this terrorist attack as an opportunity to gain political support. 

Understanding the rise of the National Rally 

The National Rally (formally known as the National Front) is a far right political party headed by Marine le Pen in France, known for its controversy, racism, and xenophobia from their many critics. Now, the National Rally is using the recent terrorist attacks as a political tactic, hoping to gain voters who have turned away from Macron’s approach, following his widely criticized pension reform which led to intense protesting and riots. 

Although the National Rally has played a role in French politics for decades, its image and political success, in the form of electoral votes and political representation in government, has increased in recent years. First founded in 1972, by Jean-Marie le Pen, father of Marine le Pen, it was a party of disgruntled veterans, known for its anti-semitism, sexism, racism, and shared many similarities with former European fascist governments. The party formerly known as the National Front struggled to gain traction for decades, regarded by the French public as both a joke and a controversy; the party has been considered by many French citizens as an embarrassing example of a political group that cannot embrace the values that many French citizens prioritize, such as European integration within the European Union, equality for all French citizens, and immigration. Everything changed after Marine le Pen replaced her father as leader of the National Rally, ushering in a new era and image for the party. Under the guidance of Marine le Pen the party evolved from a national joke to a dominating player within French politics. 

Over time Marine le Pen reformed the party, leaving behind the Holocaust denial, sexism, and overt anti-semitism, replacing it with new issues: immigration, the eurozone, and a constant tirade against Muslims. Many of the former issues campaigned for by the party are now considered too far-right and too extreme; by focusing on more present issues that appear in current events, Marine le Pen has created a modern image and a party that fits into France’s current political climate. 

  Not only did Marine le Pen replace the party’s key issues, but she also adapted its political strategy, in an attempt to appeal to a broader audience. The National Rally worked to appeal to young people and women, two groups largely missing from its previous audience. The party found strongholds in rural areas and areas where unemployment is high and voters feel left behind by modern France, such as the Northern mining regions and the Southern coast of France. Studying the political psychology behind Marine le Pen’s supporters reveals that many of them feel ignored and betrayed by the modernization and urbanization of France. As cities such as Paris and Marseille become more diverse, there is an increasing sense amongst National Rally supporters that France is losing its “Frenchness.” A concept that manifests itself in the smallest ways, such as an interview at an event for the National Rally where supporters proudly explain that at this event they are only selling French crepes, no kebabs. As France becomes more diverse, there is a sense amongst some French voters that their identity and pride is being robbed from them, a sentiment that has propelled them into the arms of the National Rally. 

 The party’s creation of National Rally youth groups created a new generation of dedicated voters, devoting themselves to the party’s ideals. Fully embracing local politics allowed the party to achieve new ground. By using mayoral races to establish control in small cities across France, the National Rally has discovered how dominating the mayoral office in one small city will eventually lead to control throughout the region. The prioritization of local level politics has allowed voters to create strong ties to the party, something the National Rally has used to help them gain access to bigger positions. 

The 2017 French presidential election marked a defining moment for the party. Although Macron succeeded in his youthful and energetic campaign, the National Rally achieved unprecedented electoral success. Despite Macron winning by a large thirty point margin, the National Rally achieved 35% of the vote, demonstrating their success from a fringe political party to a serious mainstream one. Yet Macron’s optimism, and his ability to cast himself as an outsider and newcomer against the culture of elitism and nepotism that Marine le Pen represents, allowed him to succeed in the end. In contrast to Macron’s upbeat rallies that took a cue from Obama’s 2008 election campaign, the darker undertones of fear and anger in Le Pen’s rallies just could not compete. Yet most notably, Marine le Pen refused to back down following her defeat. She vowed to strengthen her party even more, through widening their ever-growing base and changing their tactics. 

In the three years following the 2017 presidential election Marine le Pen has held true to her promise. She officially changed the name from the National Front to the National Rally, echoing a further disconnect from the party of her father. The party also found success in the 2018 European Parliament elections, where the National Rally defeated Macron’s centrist party, winning 23% of the vote. With frustration over Macron growing, a pandemic with no end in sight, and an increase in terrorist attacks, Marine le Pen appears poised to dominate the political landscape in France. 

Response to terrorist attacks 

Following the brutal murder of Samuel Paty, President Macron gave a series of speeches that caused outrage across part of the world. Macron promised to use harsh measures against Islamic extremism. Macron’s administration has closed mosques and banned certain Islamic groups. In his speeches, Macron has referenced the importance of France’s laws and culture surrounding freedom of speech; he has also praised French secularism. Although his remarks garnered support amongst the French public, they have struck a chord with the Islamic world. 

In Turkey, President Erdogan claimed Macron has “lost his way,” leading to a diplomatic argument over Macron’s response. Meawhile Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Imran Kahn, reported that Macron chose "to encourage Islamophobia by attacking Islam rather than the terrorists." Outrage over Macron’s remarks has led to a boycott of French goods in Muslim countries throughout the Middle East and Asia. Anti-French protests have all seen an uptick, where images of Macron’s face are frequently defiled. 

Macron has also been criticized for alienating the almost six million Muslims currently living in France (the largest Muslim population in all of Europe). Reports of French Muslims feeling afraid and unwelcomed in their own country has fueled anger towards Macron’s recent statements and policies on terrorism. 

By far the most controversial aspect of Macron’s recent statements is his suggestion that Islam be enlightened so as to better fit into secular France. In recent years France has used their secular power to ban burquas worn by Muslim women. Now, Macron is pushing for more compromise amongst French Muslims, such as decreasing funding given to French Muslim communities. France is a proud secular country, one that sees separation of church and state as a marker of progress and modernity. While this statement has been regarded by some as simply an extension of French imperialism banning non-western practices, Macron claims that his remarks were misinterpreted; he was only only trying to prevent the radicalisation of Islam that was the motivator behind many recent French terrorist attacks. However, critics of Macron claim that their interpretation of Macron’s statement was correct based on Macron’s recent proposal to reform Islam in France. Macron’s proposals include dissolution of many French Muslim associations, a decreasing of funds sent to Muslim communities, and a certificate training programs for imams (a leader of Muslim worshippers). All of these policies are aimed at reforming Islam in a way that best suits French society, and to prevent the radicalization of Islam that is behind many recent terrorist attacks. 

Yet despite Macron’s response being harsly criticized by many across the world, it appears as though many French citizens resonate with his opinions following the murder of Samuel Paty. According to a poll of French citizens following Paty’s death by the Institute for Opinion and Marketing Studies in France and Internationally over 87% of French citizens believe that French secularism is at risk. Adding to that, 89% of French citizens believe the risk of terrorism is very high. Perhaps the most shocking results of this study found that 79% believe that Islam has declared war on France. The results from the survey also vary based on political party. Supporters of the National Rally showed much higher percentages in responses to the questions above. 

Marine le Pen’s Response

Knowing both the controversy surrounding Macron’s statements and the current opinion of the public, it has come at no surprise that Marine le Pen would use this tragedy to appeal to the French people. 

Marine le Pen has spent much of the last decade critiquing the role of Islam in France. She has made frequent pushes to end immigration for people from Islamic countries into France, notoriously stating, “We support putting a stop to immigration.” Le Pen has also been an outspoken critic of the burqa in France, showing disdain for any form of head covering worn by Muslim women. Following the attack, Marine le Pen proposed a ban on headscarves worn by Muslim women in public. 

In response to Paty’s murder, Le Pen declared that France was at war against Islam as an ideology, potentially hoping to draw in more supporters with her view of Islam as the enemy. Indeed, metaphors of war are now a crucial part of Marine le Pen’s vocabulary following Paty’s murder, which can easily be seen as a political tactic. Marine le Pen declared that France was in need of wartime legislation against the force that is Islam. Her statements are not new or suprising, but with every passing terrorist attack Marine le Pen can be seen eagerly speaking out against the dangers of Islam and immigration, two her of party’s most defining issues. However this time Marine le Pen’s response appears even more calculated, mostly likely given the upcoming election in 2022. 

A Chance for Victory 

After the National Rally’s shocking success in the 2017 election, and their wins in the 2018 parliamentary elections, many members of the National Rally believe that the 2022 presidential election will finally Fbring them the victory they so desperately want. Knowing this, it is impossible to view Marine le Pen’s recent statements and not see them as clever tactic, designed to sway voters who are already fearful over the dangers of terrorism and radical Islamists. 

Le Pen hopes to capitalize on the key issues within her party, Islam and immigration, and with recent terrorist attacks on peoples minds, these issues will most likely become crucial talking points throughout the election. Supporters of the National Rally have reason to believe in a victory for Marine le Pen. Macron has not proven himself to be the young, enigmatic leader he appeared as during his campaign. Economic issues, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Yellow Vest Movement in 2019, the series of protests against pension reform and widespread economic issues that have plagued France, have all damaged both Macron’s base and his popularity. Now, with anger over recent terrorist attacks that show no signs of stopping, Macron’s once charming charisma and centrist views look less appealing to French voters. Perhaps this time the National Rally’s views will appeal to the majority of French voters, leading to a victory for Marine le Pen in 2022. 

Italy’s Changing Climate

The refugee crisis that reached Europe by the summer of 2015 is no stranger to anyone now, and the effects are now strongly echoing in Europe’s political climate, including the friendly, and at least until recently, very internationally minded nation of Italy. There exists significant literature concerning the relationship between the rise of the right wing in France and Spain and both nations’ acceptance of a considerable amount of refugees. This is a component of the larger discussion surrounding whether Europe, and the whole world, is headed toward a return to the traditional nation state order with distinctive national differences, little to no interaction amongst states, and absence of international institutions. Given that concerns about globalization are on the rise in many major countries, events such as Brexit and withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement confirm suspicions. Slaughter interestingly points out in her article for The Financial Times that, after the meeting between President Trump and President Putin at the Helsinki Summit this past summer, it is not inconceivable to see the world in which there is emphasis on “rule in the name of tradition, nationalism, and ethnic purity” given that both major presidential figures displayed support of more limited bilateral and international cooperation, agreeing that they will be ‘friends’ on some and ‘foes’ on other issues. Trends such as these seem to suggest that globalization, especially in the cultural sense, has exhausted its power and is now becoming a negative force leaving nations in fear for their own self-preservation. Furthermore, to make matters worse, the praise of a globalized, connected world is not only weakening, but triggering isolationist and nationalist movements to counter advancements in connectedness and blurring of the borders and cultures achieved through globalization thus far. These movements are openly supporting discrimination through their emphasis on national exceptionalism and moving the world into another extreme. Italy’s political change is following the same pattern of isolationism and exceptionalism with its, although still small, very innovative and persistent parties, increasingly attractive to the public worried about the influx of refugees and erasure of the Italian culture. This is challenging the future of the liberal international order previously seen as key to preventing another world war and promoting progress, stability, and protection of people around the globe.

Globalization did not prevent expression of positive, non-discriminating national feelings. However, history of the previous century gives clear warnings of nationalism’s potency to become a major threat to security, leading to discrimination and horrifically escalating into fascism and genocide, which is why more caution is taken with how nationalist tendencies are expressed. Europe, being the epicenter of both world wars, is no stranger to outbreaks of violent nationalist movements, which is why, as The New York Times points out, Germany went on to install laws restricting one’s freedoms of speech and expression when they are used to incite nationalistic violence and support neo-nazism, making events such as Charlottesville in the US unthinkable. Similarly, as ANSA outlines, Italy has been strictly reinforcing Muncino law since 1993, which served to dismantle continuous attempts of resurgence made by neo-fascists following Mussolini’s agenda by permitting persecution for “incitement of violence” and using symbols of hate. While Germany’s conservative Alternative for Germany (AfD) gets a lot of attention, an interesting resurgence of Italy’s right wing more often goes unnoticed. Italy’s last major formal far right political party was Alleanza Nacionale (National Alliance). National Alliance never reached the political organization and parliamentary strength of Germany’s AfD, but the party membership steadily grew with the influx of foreigners, mostly from war-stricken areas of the Balkans and the Middle East. Although National Alliance dismantled, due to mostly internal power struggles, the party still actively supported departure from the EU, emphasis on sovereignty, closing Italy’s borders, and even fought to repeal the anti-fascist Mucino law thus being the first major hint at modern resurgence of neo-fascism in Italy. Rise to power of parties such as these represents a danger to democracy and stability of international relations, and it can have devastating effects on refugees who would face nothing but more persecution and conflict that they are running from in the absence of internationally accepted laws to protect them.

Given the events of this decade and a change in migration flow, especially with the refugee crisis in 2015, some Italians are very actively and zealously returning to nationalist, conservative ideals, and some are joining CasaPound Italy-CPI. The party was formed in 2003 in Rome’s neighborhood of Esquilino. It remains situated in just a handful neighborhoods, mostly surrounding Rome, but it gives a platform to neo-fascists given that its members openly and proudly identify themselves as fascists. CPI and National Alliance both show support for sovereignty, Italian social programs (when centered around Italians), and Italian religious institutions. Many members also emphasize that their agenda matches that of the Third Position, which is political ideology that originated in France and Italy in the latter half of previous century. It is neither communist nor capitalist in nature, but rather looking for midground. This means that they themselves do not recognize classic definitions of right and left and thus do not self-identify as radical right, though their anti-immigration, anti-Zionist, and pro-sovereignty policies suggest they belong further right on the spectrum. Their persistent arguments claiming that they do assume this mid-position make their campaign misleading and draw attention of more people that then get radicalized and begin not only protecting Italian territory and unique cultural identity, but also displaying open hatred, intolerance and violence towards refugees.

CasaPound used to be under the wing of Tricolour Flame or Flamma Tricolore until it got separated in 2008 with its 6000 members. Tricolour Flame has, unsurprisingly, nationalist and neo-fascist, agenda, similar to that of CasaPound. CasaPound has only 6000 members, while Tricolour Flame has 5000, and, unlike National Alliance, neither has any seats in the Parliament,. However, both parties are embodiment of an ongoing social movement storming through Italy and finding recruits in the youth. Additional appeal comes through the passion of these groups to improve failing social program, providing public kitchens and free medical care. CasaPound has 23 families squatting in a state-owned building, owning a “fascist hostel” which provides medical and nutritional services underneath Mussolini’s fascist party flags and national symbols, as reported by Channel 4. However, it is necessary for all aid recipients to prove loyalty to Italy and Italian culture. The party also has its merchandise, but remains committed to its anti-capitalist, communist-leaning goals, though claiming additionally to be better at providing social service than the Communist Party. All of this is making the party even more attractive to young individuals looking for alternative approaches to make a better world. Were this party’s rhetoric and platform to become more dominant, or to find a way to integrate at least some of its agenda into the general public’s mindset, the effects on the marginalized would be unthinkable.

Although not strong enough to gain the 3% of the vote necessary to get into the parliament, a party such as CasaPound can still thrive within Italian provincial offices, holding a seat in Ostia council since 2017, gathering thousands of people to support it and continuously working on spreading its appeal to the youth, thus making it, provided the global trend of returning to similar isolationist right wing movements continues, a potential parliamentary active party of the future. How long will the international institutions (such as the UN, UNESCO, G20, G7) be able to sustain themselves with the pillar countries such as the US, France, and now Italy leaving the international peace and collaboration agenda? What will the world without these systems to mitigate effects of war and poverty look like and who would protect the vulnerable? Are nationalistic parties such as CasaPound really a solution to national and global problems? After all, globalization leads to deterioration of cultural norms and for some people too rapid mixing and even disappearance of cultures, thus becoming a problem and making some nationalistic concerns expressed through these parties very viable. Additionally, providing such effective social services as CasaPound does is truly admirable, as well as being innovative in regards to how resources are allocated not fully adopting either of the two economic extremes. However, it is hard to believe that a world where empathy is exclusively limited to Italians, or any specific nationality, is the key to salvation. It may be best to point out to bright, young individuals, who are willing to do such noble things as committing their valuable time and energy to help fellow party members so extensively, that they might find people worth saving outside of their conventional bubble, that it may be best for them, and their country, to consider alternatives and recognize that hopeful, young, respectful people, not so much unlike them, are willing to work on making Italy stronger together despite of having been born elsewhere.

Bolsonaro and the Far Right’s Arrival in South America

Introduction

In modern day studies of geopolitics and international relations, South America unfortunately lingers on the global backburner in comparison to regions such as Eurasia and the Middle East/North Africa (MENA). After centuries of colonialism and imperialist control by Western nations, many perceive South America as an underdeveloped continent with little political power.  This belief stems from racist rhetoric and inaccurate assumptions. While many countries within South America are not considered “developed” in the eyes of the Western world, this is due to years of political and economic destabilization by the west. Perhaps this very history of Western meddling provided the right conditions for a growing far-right movement, which has steadily been gaining traction in several South American countries. At the end of October 2018, Brazil, South America’s most populous country, elected the far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro as president. Believers in democracy and human rights defenders alike were shocked and dismayed in his election, and fear for the changes that Bolsonaro will inevitably bring to the continent, and their lasting implications on relationships with other countries and the geopolitical balance.

Political History and Legacy of Brazil

Brazil, unlike the majority of South America, was claimed as a Portuguese colony from 1500 until its independence in 1822. One of Brazil’s most distinguishing sociopolitical features is its long established  history with slavery. Beginning in the sixteenth century, Brazil was noteworthy for having brought over more African slaves than would ever reach North America; in total, Brazil imported half of all the slaves that crossed the Atlantic Ocean. Brazil was the last Western country to abolish slavery, in 1888, more than two decades after the United States did. The social repercussions of the slave trade meant that Brazil became a heavily ethnically mixed nation, with significant intermingling of African, indigenous, and Portuguese populations. While it may expected that a sizable mixed race population would foster societal equality and tolerance, to this day Brazil remains a deeply unequal society, especially in regards to the intersections of race and socioeconomic status. The roots of Brazil’s unequal society largely stem from a failure to restructure society post-slavery. Freed slaves were left without land, money, or education, and centuries later millions of their descendants continue living with these same circumstances. In the modern day, Afro-Brazilians make up two thirds of the 60,000 annual victims of crime and two thirds of the prison population. After the eradication of slavery, Afro-Brazilians often still worked in modern forms of slavery, which was not outlawed until 1995. Contemporaneously, most instances of modern slavery and forced labor occur in rural areas, often in industries tied to environmental destruction, such as the logging industry. In 2016, the Global Slavery Index estimated that there were over 300,000 people in conditions of modern slavery on any given day.

In addition to the brutal and bloody legacy of Brazil’s slave trade, corruption also plays a large role in Brazil’s political history from colony to present day. Like many other South American countries in the 20th century, a military dictatorship ruled Brazil from 1930 to 1945. After less than two decades of democracy following 1945, the military once again intervened in 1964, overthrowing the leftist Goulart administration, and established Castelo Branco as the newest dictator.  Following Branco’s regime, military governments ruled Brazil until 1985, and the country had its first democratic presidential elections in 1989. In the 21st century, Brazil’s many presidential administrations were marred by corruption and scandal, and a growing distrust in the Worker’s Party which had been in power for several decades. Both “Lula” da Silva and Dilma Vana Rousseff were criticized for reckless spending and corruption during their respective administrations. However, under these Workers’ Party-backed administrations, the government made combating and assuaging hunger and poverty one of their top priorities. On a social level, Brazil’s rural vs urban struggles also take on another dimension when considering the debate regarding the use of natural resources and sustainability. In present day, there exists little to no data on peoples living in the Amazon rainforest and little regard for their residency in the region.

Brazil’s society, like many around the world, found itself at a crossroads during its most recent election, with its people divided between leftist and right-wing movements. The left wing of Brazil’s politics has become fragile, weakened by widespread corruption, while the right came out as the party of reason, calling for the restoration of order at any cost. With Bolsonaro’s recent election, Brazil is waiting to see just how high the cost of order will be.

Bolsonaro’s Rise and Popularity

After suffering the frustration and betrayal of several leftist governments ending with corruption charges, a 2016 poll found that Brazilian society as a whole had become more conservative, with 54% of the respondents shifting their social and justice beliefs to the right. As a whole, this has been accompanied by a growing movement of conservative Christianity, both in the public sphere and in the national legislature. Later during the same election cycle, public-opinion polls demonstrated that one in three Brazilians would look favorably upon a military intervention to oust the leftist government. It is important to know these facts in order to properly contextualize the environment in which Bolsonaro’s administration was born.

Jair Bolsonaro is a figure that is mostly known to the Western world as a “tropical Trump.” In actuality, Bolsonaro’s political history and infamously controversial statements may prove him to be a much larger threat to democracy in the Southern cone. Bolsonaro rose in the public consciousness by serving as a seven-term congressman after his military career. During his congressional tenure, Bolsonaro became known as a hardlined believer in law and order, and for some of his more inflammatory statements. Beginning with Brazil’s military and dictatorial history, Bolsonaro gained attention for saying in 1999 that he believed the dictatorship should have killed 30,000 more people. Additionally, Bolsonaro became known for several misogynistic, homophobic, and racist statements, over the course of several years. Since the beginnings of his political career, Bolsonaro has established himself as an extreme member of the conservative party, with many cautioning his neo-fascist ideas.

Once Bolsonaro publically entered the presidential race, he advertised himself as the candidate who would defend democracy and uphold the constitution. To help him achieve these goals, Bolsonaro promised his policies would focus on relaxing gun laws, reducing state involvement in the economy, and leaving the 2015 Paris Agreement. Bolsonaro entered the race as the candidate of the Social Liberal Party (PSL), an anti-establishment party known for their combination of social conservatism and pro-market policies. Bolsonaro’s running mate, Mourãu, hinted that Bolsonaro’s administration would go as far as to redraft the 1988 constitution, taking away representative input, in order to stack the Supreme Court. One of Bolsonaro’s key campaign promises was to help address the growing violence in Brazil. Unlike most countries, Brazil’s biggest threat to national security is not terrorism, but the heavily growing homicide rate within cities, especially in the favelas. In 2017 alone, Brazil broke its own homicide record, with a 3% uptick in murders, resulting in the murder of 63,880 people. Bolsonaro promised to face security issues with no-nonsense iron fist policies, such as relaxing gun control laws, allowing police more freedom to use violent tactics, and employing military forces to occupy the notoriously violent favelas. In Brazil, the drug trade and the resulting war against drugs further contributed to a nation-wide increase in violence.

Bolsonaro’s supporters mainly come from the more conservative members of society, as well as those who have felt betrayed by the Workers Party (PT), including the middle class, small business owners, independent professionals, members of the police, and armed forces. While some poorer populations were motivated to support Bolsonaro due to the worsening public security situation, the majority of Bolsonaro’s supporters are the rich and educated-- members of society whose voices are seldom silenced. Many members of Brazil’s upper-middle classes and elite have been fueled by class hatred, aimed at the PT. Echoing the dictatorial roots of Chile, Bolsonaro’s chief economic advisor (also hailing from the University of Chicago) promises to focus on privatization, a policy very popular with financial markets as well as media representatives. Many political analysts have cautioned that much of Bolsonaro’s rise to power has followed traditional steps towards establishing a fascist regime; Bolsonaro has threatened political opponents, activists, and labeled leftist organizations as terrorist organizations.

Spread of Far Right Movements in a Post-Trump World

In a post-2016-election world, it has seemed like there has been an outcropping of far-right movements all over the Western world. In the last decade, new right-wing movements have combined neo-Nazi groups with traditional free-market conservatives. Under the Trump administration, right-wing political rhetoric, often stemming from the president himself, has begun to normalize these ideologies. In Western Europe, this same rise in right-wing thought is not necessarily attributed to the working-class’s response to the economic state, rather, according to Liz Fekete, it stems from reactionary prejudice surrounding the war on terror, and its resulting increase in refugee presence. In the last decade, Europe has experienced several stunning terror attacks, from the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices to last year’s attack on an Ariana Grande concert. These attacks, often attributed to young people of color, have led to a distrust in the growing immigrant population, and a resurgence of xenophobic and islamophobic attitudes. In many European countries, the uptick in immigrant populations has led to stricter policies, including media censorship and frequent raids on left-wing organizations. The purported stress on welfare states  brought on by an increase in immigration into Europe left many joining right-wing thinkers in criticizing the policies and norms as laid out by socialist states. As with the United States’ 2016 election, many who voted for right-wing parties did so out of frustration with the leftist parties and their governments.

Bolsonaro’s election is not only notable within the context of its impact in Brazil, but also the entire continent. His election seems to mark the arrival of the far-right wave into the Southern cone, after its spread to countries like Germany, France, and Sweden. Bolsonaro’s far right policies have two simultaneous effects: threatening Western-established democracy and following the Western neoliberal order. However, for some, fascism spells good business. Some Canadian and American businesses suggested that Bolsonaro’s presidency creates good business opportunities within the resource, finance, and infrastructure sectors.  As outlined in his campaign promises, Bolsonaro has promised to considerably weaken environmental regulations in the Amazon and also privatize government-owned companies. While Bolsonaro’s administration presents a threat to democracy throughout South America, for many Western nations, fascism pairs nicely with neoliberalist economic policies.

Conclusion

Bolsonaro’s election was met with strong emotions from members of Brazil’s left and right wings. Throughout Brazil’s recent election cycle, Bolsonaro quickly gained notoriety for his offensive statements involving women, the LGBTQ+ population, and Afro-brazilians. Since its very inception, Brazil has been a socioeconomically unequal society, with racial and class tensions existing to this day. Brazil’s swing to the right is due in part to the population’s disappointment in the Worker’s Party, but also has much to do with rising inequality and violence in the country. Bolsonaro’s election means Brazil now joined the ranks of the United States, Hungary, and the Philippines in its election of a right-wing populist leader. Based on Bolsonaro’s campaign rhetoric, Brazil’s newest president exhibits a commitment to erase what the left-wing sees as years of progress towards a more democratic and socialist society. Analysts concerned with human rights within South America argue that Bolsonaro’s administration poses a great threat to democracy within South America, as well as human rights concerns for Brazil’s indigenous populations. The world will see if these fears manifest into reality when Bolsonaro takes power beginning in January of 2019.

Merkel’s Far-Right Conundrum

Recently, Germany held two regional elections that may foretell doom for Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrat (CDU) party in Germany’s 2017 federal election as well as for Merkel’s open-door refugee policy. The CDU’s two setbacks in the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Berlin elections can be explained by the recent rise of the rightwing populist party, Alternative for Germany (AFD). AFD has been campaigning on a platform opposed to Merkel’s open-door refugee policy, which faces the enormous task of integrating over a million refugees into German society. In early September, the Christian Democrats placed third in Merkel’s own regional constituency, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. CDU placed behind the Social Democrats (SPD) in first and the three-year AFD in second, which gained 30.5% and 20.9% of the vote, respectively. While CDU’s loss in this region won’t impact the current administration’s composition, it has been largely seen as a symbolic victory for AFD and its anti-refugee rhetoric, especially considering Mecklenburg-Vorpommern makes up Angela Merkel’s own constituency. Despite this blow caused by AFD’s symbolic victory, the Christian Democrats experienced an even larger wake up call a few weeks later in Berlin, a notorious stronghold for the Social and Christian Democrats, where AFD, with 12.2% of the vote took third behind the Christian Democrats with 17.8% of the vote and the Social Democrats with 22.8% of the vote. While both the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats claimed victory in Berlin, many are calling it a meager win. For AFD, a fledgling and fringe political party, to do so well in Berlin signals that the far-right now has an opportunity to jump onto Germany’s national stage in its next federal election.

AFD’s victory over the Christian Democrats marks an impressive rise for the right-wing populists. They are now represented in ten state parliaments and show no sign of stopping or slowing down. AFD leaders state that their victories in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern amount to a de facto referendum on Germany’s open-door policy to refugees. Prime Minister Merkel has been steadfast in defending her open-door policy. However, as her party bleeds voters to AFD, she has begun to signal that she may begin walking away from asylum seekers. As much of Europe becomes weary of the refugee crisis and dubious of its capacity to accept more, it now appears that Germany has also reached its limit. However, the question remains just how much Germany’s recent regional elections will impact the Grand Coalition between Merkel’s party and the Social Democrats that have defined German politics since 2013. If the far-right continues to surge as it has in Germany and other European countries then surely this Grand Coalition will falter. Currently, the world is looking to Angela Merkel to see whether she will accept the backlash against the open door policy or if she will stand strong and continue championing Germany’s dedication to refugees. Both stances will have profound effects on German and European politics.

AFD was founded in 2013 as a response to the Eurozone debt crisis and Angela Merkel’s policies towards it. At its founding, it was primarily composed of liberal academics and economists who opposed Merkel’s Eurozone bail out policies. In September of 2013, AFD were not able to win the 5% of the national vote needed to secure seats in the German parliament, however those days have largely changed with AFD now polling at more than 10% in national opinion polls. This remarkable surge of support since 2013 is no accident. Party leaders of AFD purposely focused at wooing xenophobic voters through the use the use of fear and paranoia during the peak of the refugee crisis. This is evidenced through the party’s link with the Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West (Pegida) movement, which has recently created a political party of its own, and is further exemplified by their shared commitment to work together to bring their anti-refugee platform to the federal level within Germany. Pegida is famous for its right-wing and hateful rhetoric that often electrifies the many protests against refugees and Islam it carries out in Europe. More recently the group attempted to boycott Kinder chocolate after the company began a marketing campaign that contained pictures of two children of African and Middle Eastern descent. Little did members of the movement know, the boys were actually German footballers. This illustrates just how quickly this movement’s Islamophobia and xenophobia can take hold. In addition to being affiliated with xenophobic groups, the leaders of AFD themselves have been accused of both Islamophobia and anti-semitism. The newly-elected AFD senator from Berlin, Kay Nerstheimer has recently taken fire from critics for both calling civilian victims of the Nazi regime “guerrilla fighters” that were not protected under international law and downplaying the atrocities of the Nazis. Nerstheimer has also referred to Syrian refugees as “disgusting vermin” and as “parasites that feed off the juices of the German people.” Despite AFD originally arising as a response to the Eurozone bailouts, they have now pivoted to scapegoating refugees as a way to power; and it’s working. The only question is exactly how much it will change the political landscape of German politics, and subsequently, that of the European Union.

Immediately after the Berlin elections, it appeared that Angela Merkel began backpedaling on her open-door refugee policy due to the rise of AFD in what was traditionally a bastion for the Christian and Social Democrats’ Grand Coalition. In a press conference, Chancellor Merkel expressed regret for Germany’s open-door policy stating, “If I could, I would go back in time to be better prepared for the refugee crisis in 2015, for which we were rather unprepared.” She’s also signaled that she is willing to be flexible regarding the policy’s future by stating, “If I knew what change in refugee policy the people in Germany want, I would be prepared to consider it.” This shows just how Merkel, who has previously been a staunch defender of the open-door policy, has been taken aback by the unexpected potency of the AFD. It also subtly shows just how much of a threat the AFD is for the Grand Coalition of the Christian and Social democrats in Germany’s federal elections. However, after these statements Merkel has continued on to say that she does “not see a change of course, but coherent work over many, many months” in regards to Germany’s refugee policy. These opposing statements make it unclear exactly how Merkel will move forward concerning refugees and AFD’s challenge to the Grand Coalition, however, Merkel’s stance will certainly have implications for Germany’s 2017 federal election.

The rise of the AFD has many questioning whether Chancellor Merkel will lead the Christian Democrats as their nominee for chancellor next year. Merkel has not yet publicly stated whether she will “stand again in next year’s general election,” and the growing disquiet around her chancellorship could create many challengers for her in the election, not just from the AFD, but even within her own party. If Merkel stands by her refugee policy and the AFD continues to surge it would not be surprising to see a candidate within the Christian Democrats challenge her for the chancellorship. This would be incredibly damaging for the Christian Democrats and would all but guarantee the fracture of the Grand Coalition and victory of the AFD. However, Merkel may still back down as the AFD gains political power in a move to win back voters and lick the CDU’s political wounds. The Grand Coalition may still survive, but it would concede a symbolic AFD victory as the country shifts right on refugee policy. Lastly, Merkel may concede her leadership and let her party choose a new standard bearer. This would allow her to continue standing strong on her refugee policy while at the same time let her party distance itself from the policy to save the Grand Coalition.

Regardless of Merkel’s next steps and the outcome of Germany’s 2017 elections, the surprising power of AFD’s challenge to the Christian and Social democrats spell a dark future for German politics, but also for European politics as other European countries also deal with their own far-right political party challenges. Racist politics have once again made their way into Europe’s most progressive policies and the unfortunate victims will be war-weary men, women, and children looking for an escape from violence.