Introduction
This how-to-guide by The Good Lobby offers an analytical framework to assist civil society organisations to make informed decisions about engaging with the far right. It provides strategic support to civil society at a time when it must adapt to a new political landscape characterised by the far right’s increasing influence. It is intended as a tool for internal discussions rather than a prescriptive manual, acknowledging that no universal solutions exist.
The guide offers actionable strategies, three concrete case studies from civil society organisations in Europe, and potential scenarios illustrating the institutional roles far-right actors might assume during this mandate, along with guidance for effectively navigating each situation.
As civil society strives to navigate a new political landscape dominated by far-right representatives, this guide offers an analytical framework capable of assisting its organisations in making informed decisions and balancing the risks and opportunities stemming from such engagement. It aims at striking a balance between the pragmatic need to engage with controversial political representatives and parties while staying true to the organisations’ core values.
Contents
- Executive Summary
- The Rise of the Far-Right
- Balancing risks and perceived opportunities
- Operational tips
- Strategy Tips
- Tactics and Case Study
- Case Study: Find your insider, Tactic: Finding an ally within the Far-Right
- Case Study: Everyone Has a Sweet Spot, Tactic: Building broad coalitions to amplify the message and create pressure from actors that resonate more with the electoral base of a party
- Case Study: Building Bridges, Tactic: Adapt your messages to engage the far-right. Take a constructive, non-confrontational approach.
- Conclusions
Key Questions for Civil Society
When deciding whether to engage with a far-right party or politician, civil society organisations should first take into account contextual factors before carefully weighing ethical concerns against strategic gains.
Here are some key questions they might ask themselves in making this decision:
Contextual Factors
- What influence does the far-right representative actually wield, and how does it impact your organisation’s goals?
- What is the level of influence of the far-right representative?
- Do they hold institutional positions that can impact your organisation’s goals?
- Does their vote make a difference in passing legislation relevant to your cause?
- Are they in a position to block policies that align with your organisation’s goals?
- What is their position on the specific topic or issue you are working on?
- Are there any overlaps or potential areas of agreement?
- Are their stances consistent or subject to change for political gain?
- Is the political environment conducive to constructive engagement and are other mainstream actors (politicians, parties, media) engaging with these far-right representatives, or are they being marginalised
- With whom in particular is it better to engage?
- Do they have allies with less radical positions on the topic of your interest?
Ethical
- Are their views compatible with democratic principles and human rights?
- If not, does this apply to all the party/group/coalition members?
- Are they known for spreading hate speech, xenophobia, or anti-democratic rhetoric?
- If yes, are these isolated cases, or is it the general orientation of the party/group/coalition?
- If these are isolated cases, how were they handled by the party/group/coalition?
- If yes, are these isolated cases, or is it the general orientation of the party/group/coalition?
- How radical are their positions on the issues that concern your organisation?
- Are these positions at the core of their principles, or do their positions tend to be fluid and adapt/change over time?
- Are they pushing for policies that directly contradict your core mission or values?
Strategic
- Are there clear, achievable gains for your cause through engagement?
- Are there alternatives to engaging with this far-right representative that could achieve similar or better results without the risks?
- Is there a way to influence their decisions indirectly without direct engagement?
- Which level of engagement (in light of the contextual and ethical factors) is more advisable to adopt?
- What is the broader political context, and how might engagement affect the balance of power?
- What would be the reputational risks of engaging with them?
- How would your stakeholders (members, funders, allies, and the general public) perceive collaboration?
Under what Conditions?
Once it has been decided to engage, the interaction with far-right parties’ representatives
might occur only if the following conditions are met:
- Ethical and Democratic Safeguards
The far-right representative shows respect for democratic processes and human rights, or problematic views are isolated and addressed. - Strategic Benefits
Engagement can deliver clear, tangible benefits that align with your goals and mission, outweighing potential risks. - Political Influence
The far-right group has significant influence over relevant policy issues or decisions, making their involvement critical to your objectives. - Moderation and Alliances
There are moderates within the group, or potential areas of agreement on key issues, making selective engagement possible. - Minimal Reputational Damage
The engagement is framed in a way that aligns with your values and is transparent, limiting reputational risks among stakeholders.
A Framework for Engagement
Where engagement is deemed necessary, the guide provides a structured approach:
- Define Internal Rules
Establish transparent rules with clear red/orange lines, allow staff opt-outs, and update regularly. - Consult National Members
Seek local insights on delegations to understand political contexts beyond affiliations. - Tailor Engagement Levels
Adjust strategies from sharing positions to deeper collaboration, balancing influence and risk. - Control External Messaging
Proactively manage narratives, highlight outcomes, and disassociate if engagement backfires. - Assess Risks Continuously
Regularly review impacts, adapt strategies, and disengage if harm outweighs benefits.
The importance of carefully weighing the risks against potential benefits underscores the need for a cautious and strategic approach to engagement. Missteps could inadvertently strengthen the far right’s influence over the long term. – pg 31
Watch Videos
Watch more short videos about the resource on The Good Lobby Playlist.
Access Resources
Explore Further
- Statement Guide to the Far Right
- Dealing with Far-Right Interventions in Left-Wing and Progressive Movements
- Authoritarianism: How You Know It When You See It
- The Authoritarian Playbook: How Reporters can Contextualize and Cover Authoritarian Threats as Distinct from Politics-as-Usual
- Speaking Out Against Bigoted, Dehumanizing Rhetoric: What We Can Do
- Organizing against the Far Right
- Writing a Solidarity Statement: Considerations and Process Questions
- Golden Dawn: Lessons From Greece in Tackling Extremism
- Democracy Resource Hub
