From Euroscepticism to Populist Extremism: How the Information Society has Turned Aside From the Dem

The EU flague burning in Greece in 2012. Photo: The Comming Crisis

The concept of democracy can be comprehended as a constructive and constantly evaluating process which is driven by changes in both social and institutional spheres. The introduction of new media and communication technologies in global aspect have encouraged numerous positive impacts into the citizens` daily routines but they have also opened a free space for declaration of various obstructive social attitudes such as public scepticism, violence and even hostility against ethnic minorities. This article attempts to define Euroscepticism and populist extremism as major obstacles for the future collective progress and national development. By laying particular stress on contemporary political and public practices in Europe, I believe that both academics and public participants will be able to obtain relevant information as regards the current state of the European democracy as well as to enrich their knowledge concerning the function and scope of the EU institutions.

Defining Democracy from Contemporary Social perspective

As philosophical term, the concept of democracy can be comprehended as a constructive and constantly evaluating process driven by changes in both civil and political spheres. Traditionally, the subject of democracy has been associated with a state of nature which provides liberty of all individuals to be equal and independent and in which the conjugal society has been recognised as the greatest form of national sovereignty and power (Locke 1689: 198). Lately, the discussion concerning nation-state development has been oriented towards the existence of civil government or Commonwealths as well as peace and security natural laws (Hobbes 2005: 104). This perspective has been further elaborated during the eighteen century when the structural transformation of urban society has required new scientific approach concerning politics and public behaviour (Habermas 1991: 37).

Still, the social practices nowadays related to civil engagement into the democratic affairs appear to have the strongest impact to the modern age. According to Franck Webster, the definition of present information society should be referred to the wild range of methods for communication and interaction among citizens worldwide and their functional specifics. In this regard, the British scholar has elaborated a theory established on technological, economic, occupational, spatial and cultural criteria which to serve as pattern for further scientific research.

Briefly, the theory of information society explains that the character of information or the theoretical knowledge is such as to have transformed how the modern people live and conduct their-selves everyday (Webster 2006: 18). Webster suggests that the emergence of new information and communication technologies in the 1970s, the introduction of digital outlets, social networks and other Internet services into public daily routines have made the civil understanding concerning each aspect of the surrounding environment, including politics and democratic affairs more profound. Hence, the current public activities such as social movements, riots and protests against ruling political elites, which in the case of Europe are performed in the form of public scepticism, nationalism and hostility against ethnic minorities, are result of intensive processes of communication and exchange of information among the new society.

From Euroscepticism to Populist extremism

The dialogue between EU`s member states is presently overwhelmed by highly intensive communicative processes, particular reason of which have the governing parties. The political and ideological influence of populist extremism over the European societies is increasing. It is an official fact that the nationalists are highly supported in almost all states in Europe. The National Front Party (FN) in France won 23 seats in the European Parliament on the elections in May 2014. The Sweden Democrats Party (SD) has become the third major party in Sweden on the elections in September 2014, followed by the United Kingdom`s Independence Party (UKIP) which has also succeeded to occupy the third place in UK`s government after the General elections in May 2015. On the same year in Denmark, the traditional Social-Democrats Party has been defeated by the Danish People`s Party (DPP). Strong support of far-right political formations has been also demonstrated in Nederland, Greece and Italy.

Whether we attempt to explain these democratic tendencies in the EU, it can be primly assumed that the Community is seriously affected by growing cultural and political deficit directly expressed through forms of public criticism concerning the EU`s full institutional legitimacy (Sükösd & Jakubowicz 2011: 3). Originally, the transition period towards united politics and economics in Europe has raised a growing debate between policy-makers, institutions and citizens of keeping each member state`s sovereignty rights. Overtime, the Community`s official manner of governance has changed from mainly economical to highly political and has encouraged the states to become more interdependent. Meanwhile, this universal objective has never guaranteed welfare and governmental stability for the EU members. As a result, the Euroscepticism and populist extremism have become a credo for this part of the European society which stands for immediate separation of the national sovereignty from the EU`s supranational austerity and return to the previous form of moderate institutional and economic policy-making and interaction among states.

Public Criticism as part of the European Universal Dialogue

At glance, the concept of Euroscepticism describes the public negative attitude communicated towards the political and economic interdependency within the EU zone (Topaloff 2012: 70). Since the collapse of communism in the late 1980s and the beginning of democratic liberalization in Eastern Europe, the EU has also strengthened its territorial expansion which has encouraged dynamic structural changes in nation-states and appearance of new local parties and political actors. The division between left and right political wings have provided opportunity to the populist extremist parties to triumph in times of national poverty and democratic instability and to overwhelm the international political scene by turning the social opinion not only against European institutions but against ethnic groups and minorities as well (Goodwin 2011: 11). Presently, the populist extremist governments have devoted their policies in opposition to both centre-right and centre-left mainstream parties as regards the acceptance of immigrants and refugees in their countries and by even breaking the Schengen’s agreement and closing their national borders. Such example can be provided with Sweden and Denmark which have officially imposed an ID control of each person who crosses their territories since January 2016 (Expressen 2016).

But the influence of populist extremism does not confine only within these national security measures. The advance of new media and communication technologies have enabled both populist extremist and Eurosceptic groups to reach their full potential of creating propaganda and xenophobic slogans through the spread of audio-visual content in Internet (Rieger et al. 2013: 6). The absence of institutional and public awareness concerning the extremist manner of digital communication has initiated hesitance about the real essence of populist and Eurosceptic objectives. From less educated youth gangs, violent skinhead groups and white power formations to highly intellectual far-right policy-makers and their electoral supporters the rich variety of social negative expressions have become clearly stated by the use of common digital outlets and social networks including YouTube, Twitter and Facebook (Ramalingam 2014: 19).

How Europe could prevent further public and political aggravation?

Euroscepticism and populist extremism are serious challenges which the EU democracies need to overcome. From one side, the social groups which support such movements cannot be legally restricted due to the natural right of each person to express its public opinion with no restraint. From other side, the level of institutional adaption towards the contemporary practices and demands of information society as well as the restricted knowledge which they possess regarding the true motives of Eurosceptic and populist extremist followers remain limited.

Whether the Community takes an initiative to decrease Eurosceptic and populist influence over the public opinion, there should be through the implementation of effective practical measures. For instance, the creation of collaborative programmes and activities could prevent further radicalization of citizens and to diminish the level of their engagement in different extremist groups. The negative public reactions towards refugees and immigrants could be halt through the provision of contact, education and raising public awareness in relation to rich diversity of ethnic customs and traditions. Through a governmental support of programmes for free interaction between young people from different cultural backgrounds such as regular sport practices and labor initiatives the respect towards other ethnicities could be increased.

Another potential solution could be the establishment of common legislative strategy between governmental agencies in order to improve the already existing key policies and to return the faith into the EU institutions. Through the creation of official action plans against hostility and xenophobia the Community`s international approach towards the subject would become more explicit and coordinated. Besides, the elaboration of new anti-discrimination regulations on digital hate crimes could refine the institutional awareness as regards the current populist extremist communication technics and objectives (Ramalingam 2014: 21).

Conclusion

Contemporary democracy is consisted by new forms of social interactions in the center of which stands the information exchange. Sadly, the matter of communication content has been overwhelmed by skeptical views and obstructive attitudes expressed directly towards the European collective practices and the high public support of populist extremist parties is more than evidence for this fact. Such negative outcome in relation to supranational institutions may only encourage both academic researchers and state representatives to concentrate all of their competences in order to prevent further aggravation in public opinion concerning the complete effectiveness of international institutions and cultural tolerance within societies in Europe.

References

Goodwin, M. (2011), Right Response. Understanding and Countering Populist Extremism in Europe. London: the Royal Institute of International Affairs <http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/Europe/r0911_goodwin.pdf >

Habermas, J. (1991), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. An Inquiry into a Category of Burgeois Society, Cambridge: MIT Press

Hobbes, T. (2005), Leviathan, US: Renascence Editions

Locke, J. (1689), The Two Treaties of Civil Government, London: Thomas Hollis Edition

“Nu inför regeringen kontroller av gränsen”, Expressen, Nov 2015, <http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/nu-infor-regeringen-kontroller-av-gransen/> (06.01.2016)

Ramalingam, V. (2014), Old Threat, New Approach: Tackling the Far Right Across Europe. Guide for Policy Makers, London: Institute for Strategic Dialogue <http://www.strategicdialogue.org/ISD_New_Approach_Far_Right_Report.pdf>

Rieger, D., Frischlich, L. & Bente, G. (2013), Propaganda 2.0. Psychological Effects of Right-Wing and Islamic Extremist Internet Videos, Luxemburg: The Terrorism/Extremism Research Unit (FTE) of the German Federal Criminal Police Office

Sükösd, M. & Jakubowicz, K. (2011), Media, Nationalism and European Identities, Budapest: Central European University Press

Topaloff, K. L. (2012), Political Parties and Euroscepticism, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan

Webster, F. (2006), Theories of Information Society. 3rd Edition. London: Routl

#europe #conflict #politics