Description
How do European populist radical right (EPRR) parties interpret and respond to foreign policy dilemmas? There is a growing demand for research into comparative populist foreign policy, as these parties increase in popularity, representation and influence. This paper provides comparative case studies of positions taken by Front National in France, AfD in Germany, and UKIP in Britain, on intervention in the Syrian civil war, using a structured qualitative analysis of public statements including parliamentary speeches. The first contribution is empirical: tracing what the representatives of these parties say about the issues, and using that data to make inferences about their wider foreign policy world views. The second contribution is comparative: looking across cases to consider the extent to which a coherent, common, global agenda emerges. This paper argues that intervention dilemmas do not only provide an opportunity for populists left and right to attack unpopular foreign policy commitments entered into by mainstream rivals. For the populist right, nativist and sovereignist principles feed a broader transnational world view that interprets global security and geopolitical challenges very differently from more centrist parties. In particular, the paper argues that EPRR policy positions can be explained in relation to sovereignism – the rejection of any foreign interference with the authority of the state; and civilizationism – a view of Europe as defined by a distinct ‘Judeo-Christian’ heritage that is threatened by Islam. These concepts are filtered in the case of each party through their specific national political culture and context, to shape their policy and rhetoric.
