The European Policy Centre says that traditional parties lose when they copy the far right.

An analysis by the European Policy Centre signed by Fabian Zuleeg argues that mainstream parties in Europe continue to adopt ideas, rhetoric, and policies from the far right, even though studies show that this strategy rarely brings them electoral gains. Instead of recovering voters, traditional parties may legitimize populist narratives and make far-right themes more visible. Voters concerned about those themes tend to choose the original, not the copy.

Mainstream parties in Europe continue to borrow ideas, rhetoric, and policies from the far right, even though this strategy rarely helps them electorally and may actually strengthen the narratives they are trying to combat, according to an analysis published by the European Policy Centre.

In short

The EPC states that mainstream parties have spent years adopting themes and political formulas from the far right.

The strategy is based on the idea that voters attracted by radical promises can be recaptured through tougher positions.

Studies cited in the analysis suggest that mainstream parties rarely benefit electorally from this tactic.

Adopting populist themes can legitimize far-right narratives and make them more visible.

Fabian Zuleeg states that changing the strategy requires credible political alternatives, not just simple moral warnings.

The analysis, signed by Fabian Zuleeg, Chief Executive and Chief Economist of the European Policy Centre, starts from a visible trend in European politics: traditional center-right, center-left, or liberal parties are trying to respond to the rise of the far right by adopting themes, formulas, and policies associated with it.

The political logic is straightforward. If voters move towards parties that promise radical actions, mainstream parties believe they can reduce losses by adopting some of those positions. This strategy is mainly used on issues where the far right has gained visibility and electoral pressure.

However, the EPC argues that the results go in the opposite direction. Although political counterfactuals are difficult to demonstrate with certainty, the studies mentioned in the analysis show that mainstream parties rarely win electorally when they copy the far right. The strategy may make populist themes more important in public debate, and voters concerned about them tend to vote for the party that initially promoted them.

This is one of the main problems of political imitation. When a traditional party adopts the language or themes of the far right, it does not necessarily neutralize that political space. It may confirm that those themes are central and that the form in which they were articulated by the far right is legitimate. In this context, the copy can strengthen the original.

The analysis rejects the idea that mainstream parties continue this strategy out of a lack of information. Parties have access to polls, research, consultants, and electoral analyses. If they still repeat a tactic for which there are indications that it does not work, the explanation must be sought in other political incentives.

One primary incentive is internal pressure. Within parties, leaders may be pushed to respond quickly to populist themes to avoid accusations of ignoring voters' concerns. The harder wing of a party may demand firmer positions, and leadership may consider that a change in tone is the easiest way to avoid internal conflicts.

A second incentive is the fear of appearing out of touch with reality. Mainstream politicians fear that if they completely reject far-right themes, they will be seen as indifferent to the issues of ordinary people. In this framework, adopting a tougher rhetoric may seem a form of political protection.

A third reason is the difficulty of building convincing alternatives. It is easier to adopt a formula already visible in public debate than to build a credible and clear policy of one's own. Mainstream parties may come to believe that they do not have the time or political space for a more complex strategy.

Fabian Zuleeg argues that simple criticism of mainstream parties will not change this dynamic. If the goal is to stop the race towards the far right, it is not enough to tell traditional parties that the strategy is risky. They need to be convinced that there are other strategies that can address citizens' concerns, can win votes, and can strengthen democracy.

The stakes are political and democratic. If mainstream parties continue to copy the far right, they may shift the center of public debate towards populist themes and interpretations. If they want to change direction, they must show that they can address real issues without adopting narratives that undermine democratic politics.

The conclusion of the analysis is that traditional parties will continue to repeat a strategy that has failed multiple times if alternatives are not perceived as politically viable. To stop this trend, they need their own responses, not just reactions to the far right's agenda.

https://2eu.brussels/ro/news/european-policy-centre-spune-ca-partidele-traditionale-pierd-cand-copiaza-extrema-dreapta