Is framing today’s politics as a “fight against fascism” really helping democracy? Experts argue it backfires — undermining moderation, open debate, and voter trust. Instead of fear-driven narratives, Europe needs pluralism, dialogue, and a clear distinction between extremists and moderates to keep democracy resilient.
Many on the left describe the “fight against the far-right” as a fight for democracy’s survival against fascists: if it fails, democracy’s demise and the return of fascism are threatened, as 400 academics recently warned in an international declaration.
But does this frame suggest success? Does it help to safeguard democracy and win back lost voters?
Probably not. It does more damage than good. There are several explanations for the detrimental impact of fascism framing. Here’s six:
These comparisons are historically oblivious. Democracy in Europe has changed dramatically over the past 100 years. Compared to the period between the two world wars, it is now significantly stronger and more resilient.
Sure, it has weaknesses, but unlike 100 years ago, it is not fighting for survival. Europe’s democracies, with the exception of Hungary, are among the strongest in the world.
This false analysis has serious consequences: those who believe it’s a matter of sheer survival consider it significantly more legitimate. The spectrum of permissible measures is expanding – from state surveillance and party bans to rigid rules on freedom of expression.
A stable democracy, on the other hand, relies on open debate and persuasion. Emergency measures such as party bans remain the exception for them. These measures radicalize and undermine equal opportunities. For many people, they seem like a means of unlawfully maintaining power. The credibility of democracy suffers as a result.
Second, the fascist frame weakens a critical tool for defending democracy: moderation. Extremist parties can evolve.
They can stop being a menace to democracy. While they continue to campaign for viewpoints that many people find controversial, they follow basic democratic values.
In postwar Europe, many communists transitioned from advocates of the world revolution to Eurocommunists. Many right-wing extremist parties in Europe have formed in a similar manner.
They’ve gotten more moderate. The Swedish Democrats, for example, have begun to face and apologise for their Nazi heritage. Despite all of the objections, this is a significant step forward for Swedish democracy.
To defend democracy, it is critical to learn from past events, fundamentally recognise moderation, and give incentives for extremist parties to act moderately.
They are eligible for government jobs if they follow democratic standards. In contrast, fascist framing operates in the other direction. It implies a basic political law of ongoing radicalisation.
Third, the vague framing of fascism limits the political discourse. The label “fascist” obviously excludes people from the democratic spectrum, but who really qualifies? What about the MAGA movement? What happens when the CDU votes with the AfD? Or the SPÖ in alliance with the FPÖ?
The limiting of the political conversation is a big issue. On the one hand, democracy thrives on frank discussion, particularly between extremes and when huge parts of society disagree.
On the other side, the fascist framing promotes the widely held belief that many people are not heard and are patronised. This is grist for the mill on the distant right.
Fourth, for US Republicans and many European far-right parties, Europe has become a hotspot of digital repression, overreach by authorities, undemocratic barriers, and rigged elections. J.D. Vance made similar claims at the previous Munich Security Conference, and the State Department has elaborated on them.
This critique is clearly strategic, ideological, and lacking credibility—Hungary, of all countries, is being held up as an example—but it should not be disregarded as part of a “fascist playbook”. In this important debate, it is preferable to evaluate ideas, detect discrepancies, and argue gently. This convinces voters.
A concrete and open discussion on freedom of expression, elections, direct democracy, and the separation of powers makes sense, especially with this highly polarizing and often undemocratic US administration.
Even though there are questionable restrictions on freedom of expression in Europe and, for example, the recent presidential elections in Romania raise many questions , Europe can conduct this discussion calmly.
The Federal Administrative Court’s Compact ruling, for example, demonstrates the extent of freedom of expression in Germany.
Another vivid example: The AfD is allowed to hold events in Bundestag committee rooms in which it claims that freedom of expression is being trampled on in the Federal Republic just as it was in the GDR, a perversion of history full of irony: such events would never have taken place in the GDR’s People’s Chamber.
Fifth, the fascist frame implies that the extreme right is radicalising itself. Disinformation, media moguls, and living in parallel universes are the primary causes of this self-radicalization. This narrow, educational understanding of politics is wrong. It misses vital details.
The extreme right is radicalising inside its own bubbles, but progressives also contribute to polarisation, and progressives frequently have an unduly pessimistic view of their political opponents.
The nature of the political system has a significant impact on whether parties moderate or radicalise. Many people no longer feel represented by the traditional parties—there is a genuine representation gap.
This divide may be seen in the framing of fascism. It particularly appeals to individuals for whom the “fight against the right” is an important element of their political identity; nevertheless, throughout Europe, most people presently have a different political identification or have little interest in politics.
Conservatives, liberals, and the extreme right currently dominate nearly two-thirds of the seats in the European Parliament, although slightly under half of eligible people do not vote.
The fascist framework is therefore fishing in seas with insufficient fish. It also scares away voters who have shifted from the left to the far right. These are the ones who must be won back.
Sixth, the fascism framing suggests that there is a closed bloc of right-wing extremist parties, a kind of “fascist international”. There is evidently close cooperation between the far right in Europe and the United States. For example, the US State Department speaks of the “need for civilizing allies in Europe”, and the Trump administration supports European far-right parties, especially in election campaigns.
Yet despite ideological overlaps, these parties do not form a homogeneous bloc. They differ not only in their stance toward Russia but, above all, in their understanding of democracy. While the Republicans in the United States have undergone a significant radicalization in recent years and developed an undemocratic attitude toward elections and the separation of powers, the situation is different for many European far-right parties.
In Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, and Italy, they have a long tradition of winning and losing elections and of recognizing their outcomes. Unlike in the United States and Hungary, the participation of far-right parties in government in these countries has not yet led to a dismantling of democracy. The extreme personality cult of the US Republicans surrounding Donald Trump is also unparalleled in Europe.
These distinctions are crucial for democracy, but the fascist frame obscures them. Democracy has a great interest in differentiating between moderates and extremists, rather than lumping them together.
In political discourse, the distinctions and numerous internal conflicts within the far right must be highlighted, not their claimed similarities.
In sum, democracy can be better maintained by engaging in open, calm discourse rather than a fear-driven fascist narrative. This discourse should precisely and vividly address triumphs, as well as difficulties and threats. Above all, it must involve fanatics. This does not imply that all viewpoints are acceptable in a democracy.
There are limitations, which are very well established in national, international, and UN resolutions. When in doubt, variety of thought and pluralism take precedence. In an era of intense polarisation, we want a “manifesto for pluralism” rather than a “manifesto against the return of fascism.”
The author Dr. Nils Meyer-Ohlendorf is the director of the International and European Governance Program at the Ecologic Institute in Berlin. The article first appeared on IPG and was translated to English. Follow Europeans24 for more analysis!
