Europe’s traditional parties have been accused of helping to “mainstream the far right” by adopting policies first promoted by far-right parties. Yet as Alvaro Oleart and Juan Roch argue, we should be equally concerned about the “far-righting” of the mainstream.
In both the US and Western Europe, political commentators frequently point to the “mainstreaming of the far right” as a reason for the reactionary nature of contemporary mainstream politics. Mainstream parties, worried about losing voters, are said to adopt themes and policies first promoted by far-right parties.
This account has become highly influential, but it rests on two dubious assumptions: that reactionary ideas originate outside the mainstream and that mainstream parties merely react to external pressure, breaking away from their traditionally “moderate” perspectives.
We argue that this diagnosis is incomplete. It also reflects a deeper image of the mainstream as a naturally moderate and essentially stable political space – a neutral centre that aims to protect liberal democracy from extremist forces.
The mainstream is often conceived of as a largely depoliticised domain that simply exists and which is implicitly valued as inherently positive. However, the idealisation of the mainstream and mainstream parties is at odds with contemporary politics.
Ceuta and the European mainstream
The “migration crisis” in Ceuta is a case in point. After 70,000 migrants crossed the Spanish border at Ceuta in July 2026, 22 EU leaders – including centre-left Prime Minister of Denmark Mette Frederiksen – responded by sending a letter addressed to the leaders of the European Council and European Commission.
The letter stated that “we have a duty to effectively deter and relentlessly combat illegal migration, by coordinating our action, strengthening our external borders and addressing all policies that can serve as pull factors, such as the regularisation of [a] very large number of irregular migrants”.
The “pull factor” mentioned here is a reference to Spain’s decision earlier this year to give legal status to undocumented migrants living in the country. The argument is that granting these rights created an incentive for migrants from outside the EU to risk their lives by crossing the border.
Yet the EU also has numerous agreements with authoritarian governments in which these countries are expected to stop migrants and refugees from crossing the EU’s borders. This outsourcing of migration policy has fuelled human rights violations.
The EU’s agreement with Tunisia, for instance, has been called a “blueprint for complicity” by Amnesty International. The European Network Against Racism has found evidence these agreements also reproduce a racial logic that privileges whiteness.
Alongside these agreements, the EU’s new “Return Regulation”, agreed in June this year, promises to facilitate deportations and expand coercive measures against migrants and refugees. The regulation was approved by the European Parliament amid chants of “send them back” by right-wing MEPs.
The human cost
When talking about Ceuta, most mainstream parties omit that around 100 people (and unfortunately probably more) have died during the crisis, among them Faten Ben Omar El Azizi, a 20-year-old footballer who had her Schengen visa approved the same day she drowned.
She was one of many trying to live a better life. Friends and relatives are still waiting for their loved ones to return safely in the aftermath of the events, which have included violent and forced repatriation of thousands of migrants, including many minors.
The latest episode in Ceuta cannot be detached from the death of migrants in the Mediterranean Sea (over 1,000 people have died in 2026). Many of these deaths are entirely preventable. Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, has frequently been criticised for failing to respect its human rights obligations.
The violence at the EU’s borders is also illustrative of Europe’s colonial legacy. The letter signed by EU leaders cited the “pull factor” of granting legal status to migrants but made no mention of the fact that many companies are happy to employ undocumented migrants in the EU to perform work such as fruit picking for low wages in dangerous heat in Southern Spain. People with no legal rights are easier and cheaper to exploit.
Far-righting the mainstream
Events in Ceuta illustrate that alongside a “mainstreaming of the far right” we are also now increasingly seeing a “far-righting of the mainstream”. In a new study, we show that while most of the focus has previously been on factors external to mainstream parties – such as the success of far-right parties or shifts in public opinion – there are powerful internal dynamics shifting the agendas of the mainstream toward more reactionary positions.
We find three key drivers for this shift. The first is the legacy of colonialism and racism. Mainstream actors now increasingly feed into narratives that dehumanise migrants, Muslims and other communities, which has been seen clearly in recent discussions around Ceuta and Gaza. This is grounded in principles and ideas that informed the formation of the Western liberal state, where racialised communities were regarded either with ambivalence or as people in need of domination and tutelage.
Second, we are witnessing a broader geopolitical realignment, increasingly shaped by Donald Trump’s imperial ambitions. In this emerging order, international institutions and international law are being openly delegitimised, while colonial interventions abroad and intensified border controls targeting racialised populations are becoming increasingly normalised.
Third, new class alliances are emerging, alongside an active search by economic and corporate elites for alternative political representatives and the mobilisation of support behind them. One sector of the working class – white, male workers without university degrees – has gradually forged a critical alliance with these avant-garde elite fractions that push for a reactionary political shift.
Is defeating far-right parties enough?
Dominant accounts of the far right treat it as a fringe political space. The solution to the rise of the far right is often seen as returning to a status quo where these parties become an exception again.
Yet our work points in a different direction. If reactionary politics are embedded within the mainstream itself, then containing far-right parties is insufficient. Instead, it is necessary to properly diagnose and address the root causes of contemporary reactionary politics within our societies. Only in doing so will we be able to effectively counter the far right.
For more information, see the authors’ accompanying article in Comparative European Politics.
Note: This article gives the views of the authors, not the position of LSE European Politics or the London School of Economics.
Image credit: Agorca provided by Shutterstock.