In an era marked by political turbulence where passions are inflamed with an almost religious vigor, the shadow of the extreme right seems to be redrawing itself in the contours of European public debate. The recent dissolution of the National Assembly by President Emmanuel Macron, in a gesture that betrays his dismay in the face of eroding popular support, has brought to light the fear of an inevitable rise of the far right, today credited with 31% in the polls ahead of the left alliance (28%) and the Macronist camp (18%).
The National Front (FN), now renamed the National Rally (RN), carries within itself the complex legacy of its tumultuous origins. Founded in 1972 by Jean-Marie Le Pen, with the support of figures with controversial pasts like Pierre Émile Bousquet, the party has long been the pariah of French politics. His first decades were marked by almost total isolation, his name synonymous with political and social taboos, evoking the darkest hours of European history.
But with the ascension of Marine Le Pen to party leadership in 2011, a significant transformation began to take place. The latter, aware of the political glass ceiling represented by the extremist image of the FN, implemented a process of “de-demonization”, seeking to normalize perceptions of the party and reposition it in the French public debate.
This transformation of the National Rally required the overhaul of its rhetoric as well as the restructuring of its leadership, aiming to eliminate the most radical elements and forge a less polarizing political platform. Under the aegis of Marine Le Pen, and with Jordan Bardella as president, the RN is striving to reposition itself as the defender of popular sovereignty, with the aim of broadening its electoral base. He seeks to distance himself from the elites, whom he paints as globalist and pro-European, often accused of being disconnected from daily realities and the concerns of ordinary citizens.
So, beyond the headlines, a fundamental question arises: are we really witnessing a resurgence of the far right, or are we witnessing a game of semantics intended to demonize a nationalist alternative to predominant liberalism? of the European Union ?
Historically, the specter of the extreme right evokes the totalitarian shadows that hovered over 20th century Europe.e century: Mussolini’s fascism, Hitler’s Nazism and even Francoism. These regimes, through their totalitarian character and their institutionalized violence, represent a radicalism that is difficult to directly associate with contemporary political movements in the West.
It is important to note that the label “far right” varies greatly from continent to continent, reflecting political and cultural specificities. In North America, it is often associated with white supremacism and religious and protectionist conservatism, as in certain factions of the Republican Party under Donald Trump. In Canada, personalities like Pierre Poilievre, with his populist speech, Maxime Bernier, with his conspiratorial and libertarian positions, and Éric Duhaime have all been the subject of this infamous banner.
In France, the National Rally, with its vibrant call for national sovereignty and its firmly anti-immigration discourse, seems rather to be part of a classic right-wing tradition, particularly in its way of demanding the preservation of French cultural identity. . In Quebec, similar policies, notably supported by François Legault and the Coalition Avenir Québec – such as the Law on State Secularism, the limitation of immigration or the charter of values of the government of Pauline Marois -, are the subject of intense debate, but are rarely perceived or denounced as extremist.
This disparity in perception leads us to this question: why then, when similar policies are implemented in Europe, are they so quickly cataloged as manifestations of extremism?
This observation reflects the fact that, in current political discourse, extremism labels often serve less to describe than to discredit, thus painting the “other” not as an adversary, but as a fundamental threat, reflecting a schism profound in the way we understand and tolerate the diversity of political perspectives.
Words transcend their role as simple labels; they are imbued with power, loaded with memory and fraught with consequences. They shape our perception of the political world and influence the course of our democracies. With this in mind, it is essential to carefully examine these terms, question their application, and consider the effects of their often hasty attribution.
We are therefore faced with a confusing polysemy of the term “extreme right”. On the one hand, it is used to stigmatize and politically isolate parties which, although nationalist and conservative, do not espouse the totalitarian principles historically associated with this designation. On the other, it indicates a dilution of the real ideological issues, drowned in a relativism which confuses critical rigor with slander.
The necessary distinction between true ideological extremism and what is, in reality, a more nationalist right seems to be blurring. This semantic confusion is not just a play on words; it reveals a struggle for control of the contemporary political narrative, where the “extreme right” label is sometimes a scarecrow, sometimes a sign of radicalization of minds, but rarely a rigorous tool of analysis.