Bahadır Selim Dilek writes: Why can't the world overcome populism?

Political scientists, those interested in political philosophy, sociologists, those working in political sociology or political psychology, and economists have begun to rack their brains once again to find an answer to this question, following the election victories of far-right Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and "right-wing libertarian populist" Javier Milei in Argentina, and Donald Trump emerging as the frontrunner in US polls.

If we move the issue beyond the three or five sentences repeated through the same old clichés, it would not be wrong to say that with this rising wave of new fascism, we are on the threshold of a period pregnant with potential new tragedies and suffering on a global scale.

Several factors stand out in recent commentaries regarding the strengthening of the far-right, new fascism, and authoritarian regimes.

In the West, the issue of refugees, immigrants, foreigners, and Islamophobia; in the East, anti-Westernism!

Authoritarian regimes in the East seem to have become accepted; for instance, Erdoğan in Turkey, Putin in Russia, Xi Jinping in China, and Narendra Modi in India are not much of a subject of debate in the context of Western values such as democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and pluralism.

Because the West—specifically Europe—is the geography where the roots of racism and fascism are found, the far-right beginning to gain strength there inevitably brings to mind the human tragedy that caused millions of people to lose their lives on the old continent 80 years ago.

That is why, in every election held in European countries, eyes turn to the vote shares of far-right parties. As of today, far-right votes across Europe have increased at least 10-fold compared to 20 years ago.

Let us underline with a thick pen that the most fundamental factor in the emergence of populist leaders and in racism finding a social base and gaining strength is the neoliberal banditry that has practically held the world captive, and let us emphasize that this also stems from the internal crises of neoliberal democracy itself.

It is known to everyone even remotely interested in the subject that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western capitalism created deep injustice on a global scale and fueled regional instabilities and conflicts to protect its interests in underdeveloped or developing countries; this, in turn, caused intense human mobility from the east and south to the west.

In other words, the West triggers mass migration with its colonialist policy on one hand, while complaining about said human mobility and doing everything in its power to prevent it on the other.

In cases where it cannot prevent it, as in the Dutch example, far-right, anti-immigrant leaders who feed on xenophobia cross the finish line at the ballot box.

Europe avoids confronting its racist past, but when it gets cornered, it again looks to racist leaders for help.

As Ahmet Kaya said, what a bitter contradiction this is, mother...

At this point, it is useful to step outside the generally accepted clichés with a slightly unconventional perspective.

First, let us try to provide the answer to the question of why this vicious cycle, which has been ongoing since the early 90s, still cannot be broken, using an example related to the Netherlands.

I went to the Netherlands in 2010 upon the invitation of the European Federation of Journalists. In a meeting we held with a non-governmental organization regarding immigrants, one of the officials stood up and said, "We are experiencing serious difficulties regarding the integration of the Turks here," and continued:

"We are doing our best to ensure they preserve their own identities and cultures. There are bilateral agreements for them to receive religious education and not forget their mother tongue. We believe they have no problems regarding individual rights and freedoms. Their social rights are the same as the Dutch... We have no exclusionary attitude. Despite this, we are not very successful in integration."

He gave examples based on these statements. He even recounted the trouble that arose when a Turkish family slaughtered their sacrificial animal during Eid al-Adha not in the place designated by the municipality, but in the garden they shared with five Dutch families.

The municipality imposed a heavy fine on the Turkish family upon complaint, but the non-governmental organization in question argued that since the Turkish family was fulfilling their religious duty, this was a requirement of freedom of religion and conscience, and initiated a legal battle against the municipality.

I couldn't help but laugh at these sentences and said, "You are doing everything you can so that Turks do not integrate into Dutch society."

In Europe, the issue of refugees, immigrants, and foreigners is a subject for left-wing politics just as much as it is for right-wing politics.

The European left has taken on the role of a protective shield, a defense attorney.

But social dynamics work differently. As the right shifts to the far-right and gains strength, the left, which advocates for immigrants and refugees through identity politics, melts away and becomes far from being a source of hope for the masses.

Unions and left-wing groups lose their power, while organizations that emulate militarism gain strength.

Just as in Turkey, the left in Europe, because it remains like a deer in the headlights in the face of identity politics, moves away from class politics, and fails to develop an alternative approach, it also approaches the issue of immigrants, refugees, and foreigners through religious, sectarian, and ethnic affiliations rather than public good, a unifying perspective, or a vision of common life.

They think religious prohibitions are freedom; and religious, sectarian, and ethnic affiliations are pluralism.

Immigrants and foreigners, who have taken on an atomized character under the fire of the right wing and the protective shield of the left wing, close themselves off and refuse to integrate into society in order to protect themselves.

At the point where society cannot digest this "hard nut to crack," anti-immigrant sentiment and xenophobia begin to increase.

Far-right politicians carefully nurture this and gain strength. As they gain strength, immigrants close themselves off even more. At the same time, this creates a foundation for religious radicalization. Let us also note that the number of those among immigrants who join Al-Qaeda and ISIS is not insignificant.

While we are at it, let us open a short parenthesis here and state that Islamophobia is not, as Erdoğan frequently states, hatred of Islam, but that the exact meaning of the word is fear of Islam.

The psychopathology of the events that broke out in recent months in Marseille, France, where North Africans live in high concentrations, also needs explanation in this context!

Those leading the events are not new immigrants or refugees. The majority are Arabs of Tunisian or Algerian descent, or those of African origin, who have been living in France for three or perhaps four generations.

There are different economic, social, and cultural dynamics there, but the result still leads to the path of a populist and far-right leader like Le Pen gaining strength.

In Hungary and Poland, populist right-wing leaders can maintain their power even if they are signing off on practices that will shatter the EU's political criteria. They do not seem like they will leave their seats in the near future. Likewise in Serbia.

Even if alarm bells for democracy have not yet started ringing in Germany and Italy, political developments are at a worrying level.

Let us put a period here for now, saying we will make the socioeconomic dimension of this distorted order, where the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, the subject of another article.