Can a strategy of ostracizing far-right anti-immigrant parties contribute to their containment or do these strategies have the opposite effect. A new paper by Baruch political scientist Till Weber, published jointly with Joost van Spanje in the journal Party Politics, suggests that the effects of boycotting far-right anti-immigrant parties are highly context specific. Weber and van Spanje define ostracizing “as the systematic refusal to politically cooperate with that party”. They argue that the context of public opinion is decisive in shaping the outcome of ostracizing strategies. If a far-right anti-immigrant is perceived by like-minded voters as being conducive to their policy goals if it becomes part of a coalition government, ostracizing that party will decrease its electoral support. If, on the other hand, the far-right anti-immigrant party is perceived more useful as a signaling tool while in opposition, ostracizing will increase the party’s support. Weber and van Spanje conduct a survey experiment in the Netherlands to empirically support their theoretical claim. They estimate differences of up to 6.5 points on an 11 point scale, given different context conditions.
The paper adds important insight to the discussion about how established parties can and should deal with far-right anti-immigrant parties. Thinking about visions for democracy, Weber and van Spanje’s results call for well-calibrated responses and sophisticated political strategies on part of those political forces that wish to strengthen liberal democracy.