What does Perussuomalaiset (PS) party presidential hopeful, Timo Soini, really think about immigration and cultural diversity? A column he wrote in the Suomen Soini Presidentiksi [Soini for president of Finland] publication exposes what the leader of the PS really thinks about such important issues.
It’s clear while reading Soini’s views on the topic that he is in favor of one-way integration, or assimilation. He praises in the column, headlined Maahanmuutto, demokraatia ja perussuomalaiset [Immigration, democracy and the Perussuomalaiset], those immigrants that are ready to accept Finnish culture and traditions.
I am certain if we asked the PS leader to define Finnish culture, his response would be deficient and leave us with more questions than answers.
The same “conservative and Christian” views that Soini speaks so highly of in his column has, in my opinion, been at the center of the problem. It has retarded and hindered the acceptance of hundreds of thousands of expat Finns, immigrants and their children from our society and threatens to exclude many others in the future.
If the PS and Soini haven’t already noticed, these so-called bicultural multi- or polycultural Finns have taken that giant step to integrate but many still suffer from acceptance by society. High unemployment levels, institutional racism, prejudice, antiquated views of what culture is and even the rise of an anti-immigration party like the PS, show that more acceptance is needed by our society.
Soini’s and the PS’ total disregard for mutual acceptance and that integration is a two-way street show well the biggest flaws in their stance and why it is correct to call them an anti-immigration party.
Even though Soini does not mention the word multiculturalism once in his column, his definition of it is not too far from Jussi Halla-aho’s and that of other far-right anti-immigration groups in Europe like the Danish People’s Party.
The PS chairman writes that he is not against immigrants but opposes our immigration policy. This affirmation, that the problem lies in our immigration policy, is one of the favorite deceptive arguments used by far right and anti-immigration groups. When Soini uses such an argument he really means that Europe and Finland allow too many Muslims and Africans to live here.
Another important matter is revealed by Soini’s column: Despite his conservative-populist political views, he can deliver his opinions in a diplomatic sugar-coated fashion compared with too many in his party members who can’t and whom he rightfully criticizes.
Soini is the good cop of the PS but at the end of the day he is a cop like the rest of the members of his party.
One key paragraph in particular exposes to the tee the PS leader’s view on immigration and cultural diversity: “I also hope that more and more native Finns could tolerate those who embrace Finnish culture, our customs and traditions; those [immigrants]who want to stick to conservative and Christian values??, and even those who have decided to vote for the Perussuomalaiset [party]. We live together side by side in this beautiful and wonderful country, and in a affluent society that is fair.”*
In other words, Soini and the PS are ready to accept you as members of society as long as you resign your culture, identity and rightful and democratic right as equal members of this society. Acceptance only happens on their terms and with conditions.
What does the PS leader think about those Finns who don’t share his conservative and Christian views?
*Toivon myös, että yhä useammat kantasuomalaiset voisivat suvaita niitä, jotka vaalivat suomalaista kulttuuria, meidän tapojamme ja perinteitämme; niitä, jotka haluavat pitäytyä konservatiivisissa ja kristillisissä arvoissa, ja jopa niitä, joka ovat päättäneet äänestää perussuomalaisia. Me asumme yhdessä rinnatusten tässä kauniissa ja upeassa maassa ja reilussa hyvinvointiyhteiskunnassa.
By Enrique Tessieri
In many respects 2011 was a watershed year for Finland and Europe concerning the rise of anti-immigration parties and xenophobia. The biggest news to hit Finland this year was without a doubt the April 17 election, which saw the anti-immigration Perussuomalaiset (PS) party win 39 seats compared with only 5 in 2007. On July 22 Anders Breivik gunned down most of his 77 victims in Norway.
If you are an immigrant or a visible minority in Finland, 2011 will go down as one the worst years in a very long time. Certainly anti-immigration parties in Europe have gained strength by the ever-worsening economic situation, the euro crisis and financial bailouts of countries like Greece, Ireland and Portugal.
Below is a quarter-by-quarter account of what made news on the immigration front in Finland during 2011:
First quarter
The year kicked off in January with news of the death of Eveline Fadayel, an Egyptian grandmother who was granted a residence permit after a lengthy process with immigration officials. The late woman’s legal battle to remain in Finland with her naturalized Finnish son triggered lots of concern and public debate over her plight as well as on immigration policy.
Her case highlights problems with our immigration policy and family reunification. A similar example are minors who have been granted refugee status by this country but who are forced to live separated from their parents. The government has announced plans to tighten family reunification rules further.
With the PS looking better in the polls as the historic April election neared, the party published its election manifesto in February. What is odd about the PS’ manifesto is that it does not differ radically from the government’s immigration policy, which suggests that most political parties in Finland take a tough line on immigration policy.
PS chairman, Timo Soini, told a group of German journalists in April before the election that he supported the government’s immigration policy.
With the anti-immigration atmosphere thickening in Finland, concern over the rights of minorities like the Swedish speakers in Finland was expressed by Sweden’s Integration Minister Erik Ullenhage. Then foreign minister, Alexander Stubb, said the debating atmosphere on immigrants and refugees in this country had become “oppressive.”
Second quarter
The election on April 17 dominated national and even international attention for quite a while. Newly elected PS MPs like Teuvo Hakkarainen became instant household names and the darlings of the tabloids with their racist and derogatory statements about blacks, refugees and immigrants. Racism, holocaust denial and off-the-cuff remarks by PS MPs and others would put Soini under the media spotlight throughout the year.
While Soini tried to calm Europe after the election by stating that the PS wasn’t an extremist party and that “Europe could sleep safely,” the news of the PS’ election victory did not go down well with some. Writer Sofi Oksanen was quoted as saying on Rome-based daily La Reppublica that the PS has its roots in Hitler’s Germany.
Emboldened by the election result, the Finnish media started to report more closely hate crimes. One of these that was reported by a tabloid about the speaker of parliament, Ben Zyskowicz, who was almost attacked by an unidentified person after he was called a Jew.
PS MP Jussi Halla-aho, who leads the far-right Suomen Sisu anti-immigration wing of Soini’s party, was elected to chair the administration committee, which among other things oversees immigration policy.
Despite the election victory fanfare of the PS, a group of 1,000 immigrants and Finns demonstrated in front of parliament against the PS. The demonstration was organized by My Finland is International on Facebook. It was a historic event since the last time that immigrants and Finns demonstrated together in such large numbers was in October 1982.
The PS decided to sit it out in the opposition instead of forming part of government due to differences over EU policy. Even if the PS are now in the opposition, it does not mean that the other parties can’t feel its shadow. This became clear when the government appointed Christian Democrat Päivi Räsänen to head the interior ministry in charge of immigration policy.
The PS has approved and expressed satisfaction with Räsänen’s appointment. The Christian Democrat’s provocative views on homosexuality caused a large exodus of people to abandon the Lutheran Church.
Third quarter
The holiday month of July in Finland was rudely awoken when news of Breivik’s mass-killing crusade to save Europe from “Islamization” and “cultural Marxists” became known to the world. While Breivik had quoted Halla-aho in his manifesto, far-right parties and Islamophobic websites like the Gates of Vienna and anti-immigration politicians distanced themselves from the mass killer.
Others like PS MP James Hirvissari blamed the mass killings in Norway on the “100% rapes” committed by foreigners in Norway.
Europe and especially the Nordic region was never the same after 22/7. The ever-growing support that anti-immigration party’s thought that would never end hit a wall. For some Finnish parties like the Social Democrats, it was a wake up call to the threat that the far right and populist parties pose on society.
The tragic evens in Norway had as well an impact on elections in Norway and Denmark. Even the far-right Sweden Democrats had taken a hit in the opinion polls. One explanation why we haven’t seen a big fall in support for the PS in Finland is because it has profiled itself for now as an anti-EU party as one opposed to immigration and Islam.
There was more news that we read about in the third quarter like the Romany minority evictions in Helsinki, former President Martti Ahtisaari asking Finns to invite immigrants for coffee, and news of hate crimes and racism emerging in Eastern Finnish towns like Iisalmi and Lieksa.
Like in the beginning of the year, another poll showed that parents in Southern Finland want to limit at their school the number of children with immigrant backgrounds.
The Police College of Finland reported in October that hate crimes had fallen in 2010 by 15% compared with the previous year. Some, like Migrant Tales, treated this news with skepticism.
Finns learned in the end of July of Ulla Pyysalo, PS MP Juho Eerola’s aide, who posted a racist joke on Facebook about Green Party MP Jani Toivola, who is black and gay. She would gain more notoriety in early November when hackers uncovered her name on a neo-Nazi association membership list. MP Eerola, who has written positively about Benito Mussolini’s economic policies, does not believe belonging to a neo-Nazi association is grounds for dismissal.
Researcher Vesa Puuronen claimed at the end of July that there are “tens of thousands” of far-right supporters in Finland. Secret police Supo does not consider the far right to be a threat in Finland but is keeping a close eye on such groups.
My Finland is International organized in the end of July a demonstration in show of support for Breivik’s victims and against a culture of silence with respect to hate crimes and racism.
The PS change their English name to “The Finns.”
Fourth quarter
As in the previous three quarters of the year, there was no shortage of news on the immigration and hate-speech and crime front. Migrant Tales has criticized on a number of occasions the Finnish media, politicians and public officials for their lack of leadership concerning the growth of racism and parties like the PS.
Helsingin Sanomat editor, Riikka Venäläinen, offered in early November a humble mea culpa. She said: “…our job is to give background information, analysis and develop the story from a certain angle.When that is done on a tight schedule, it’s pretty certain that we are guilty of very short-sighted conclusions. I accept the criticism that has to do with reporting on immigration issues.”
Former Helsingin Sanomat Janne Virkkunen was not as apologetic. He expressed concern over the anti-immigration atmosphere in Finland and partly blamed its rise on the PS.
If the media turned a partial blind eye on PS candidates for their membership in extremist associations like Suomen Sisu, the silence of too many politicians and the PS’ lame stance on racism and neo-Nazi groups is equally worrying. One of the biggest anti-immigration extremists of the PS and Suomen Sisu member, MP Hirvisaari, got fined in mid-December for hate speech.
All eyes are now on PS chairman Soini, who has said publicly that any member who got “convicted for racism” would be kicked out of the party. Soini said that he will make a decision on Hirvisaari after an appeal has been heard by the Supreme Court.
PS MP Pentti Oinonen refused to attend the president’s independence day reception on December 6 because he thought homosexuals dancing together at the reception were an insult to veterans. A local party boss of the PS claimed the homosexuality led to pedophilia.
In order to show the government’s get-tough stance against immigrants, refugees and in the process steal some of the political thunder of the PS, Minister of Interior Räsänen reinforced plans to tighten family reunification rules.
One of the bright spots in December has been President Tarja Halonen, who has been outspoken against discrimination and exclusion. In early December she said on a popular talk show that racism will not do away with injustice. She said that journalists, politicians, the clergy and teachers must break the cycle of hate speech.
Halonen commented as well on a poll by Helsingin Sanomat, which showed that two thirds of Finns felt there is much or a fair amount of racism in Finland. The poll revealed that PS supporters were twice as likely to recognize racism in themselves than others surveyed. “People who recognise racism in themselves have ended up voting for the True Finns,” said Halonen. The comment angered a lot of PS supporters including Soini.
The credibility of such surveys, which highlight a serious social problem in Finland, have been questioned by researchers like Migration Institute director Ismo Söderling.
With a pretty dismal year ending, what kind of new year do we expect in 2012 concerning immigration and our ever-growing cultural diversity as a society?
At the present pace it’s evident that there will be no shortages of news next year!
By Enrique Tessieri
Tell me what your immigration laws are and I will tell you what kind of society you live in. Show me how those laws defend minorities and encourage cultural diversity and I will show you hypocrisy.
There is a saying that a person’s true character is not exposed during good times but when there is great adversity.
The global financial meltdown of markets in September 2008 and the euro financial crisis today is testing our “good will” to breaking point.
Far-right, populist and even right-wing conservative groups in countries like the U.S. have succeeded in making racism sound fair, according to Colorlines.*
There are worse examples of how the spirit of the laws and that of deeds show how our societies are flirting and have succumbed in some cases to the ways of despotism.
A case in point is Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County in Arizona, who got his wings clipped after the Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security stripped him of several federal tools for immigration enforcement, according to Police Patrol. *
Arpaio has been accused of racial profiling and targeting Hispanics in his county. But he isn’t the only case. There are too many others that do what Arpaio does but without such revolting fanfare in the media.
In Europe and Finland anti-immigration parties and politicians are arguing as well that it is ok to be racist and homophobic.
What kind of a society do we have in our country with immigration laws getting tougher and anti-immigration groups gaining strength? What do our laws and deeds reveal?
That we have a chronic leadership crisis and have lost our way.
*Thank you Community Village Daily Activist for the heads up!
By Enrique Tessieri
One matter that shines through after reading and responding to the thousands of threads on Migrant Tales is that multiculturalism, racism and inequality mean different things for different people. One way to make sense of the ongoing debate on Finland’s ever-growing acceptance of its cultural diversity is figuring out what these terms mean for these groups.
Without understanding their meaning and how these terms are employed is to misunderstand the whole debate to put it lightly.
Take for instance how the term “multiculturalism” is used in Finland. While such a term isn’t mentioned in any of our laws never mind our Constitution, officials use it to refer to how our country is becoming more culturally and ethnically diverse.
Finland’s official definition of multiculturalism means in general the same thing as the Canadian social policy, which promotes cultural diversity.
One of the problems when officials use the term multiculturalism they too often forget to define what it means. Moreover, is diversity and equality, just like the Canadian multicultural model, being promoted in Finland? Intentions appear noble but deeds sometimes suggest the contrary.
If we look at anti-immigration groups in Finland, multiculturalism means an objection to cultural diversity, or specifically of Muslims and Africans moving here. Thus multiculturalism is seen by these groups as an immigration policy versus one that facilitates integration.
The Nuiva manifesto is the smoking gun of the PS’ ignorance and loathing of groups like Muslims and Africans. If ever adopted, the manifesto would would not only strengthen institutional racism but promote one-way integration, or assimilation. The aim of any immigration and integration policy based on the Nuiva manifesto would create those ghettos that these groups commonly warn us of by watering down the civil rights of those that the PS does not see as the “stereotypical prototype white Finn.”
Paradoxically “social equality” for far-right groups means bolstering their rights at the cost of others. Racism is the chief architect in creating that many tier society they seek.
The Nuiva manifesto sheds light as well on the PS as a far-right populist party. How do you define the far right? Is it any party that wants to change the values of society by strengthening their political base by promoting racism, social inequality, xenophobia and nationalism? Yes.
Moreover, the definition of “multiculturalism” by anti-immigration groups in Finland is similar to other far-right groups in Europe. There is nothing unique about it except for that it is a paste-and-copy job in the Finnish language. It’s the same hate speech but in the Finnish language.
One of the biggest myths pushed by anti-immigration groups in Europe today is that immigrants in general and specific groups don’t want to adapt. This could not be further from the truth. Since we are all social animals, our first and foremost aim anywhere is to adapt.
Since cultures constantly change and adapt, we should be promoting that change instead of fixing our view of “others” on stereotypes.
While everyone decides what his or her identity is, having narrow definitions of who is Finnish and who is not is a way of not challenging major issues like discrimination. There are today in Finland tens of thousands of people with “immigrant backgrounds” who have lived most of their lives in this country but are treated like outsiders.
Think about the can of worms we’d open if you started to speak of these “others” as Finns and equal members of society? We’d finally start facing the challenges and real issues confronting our society concerning racism and exclusion.
By Enrique Tessieri
What kind of Christmases will we be celebrating in the mid-2030s? Like past generations, will we set aside our worries, demographic and environmental problems and allow the Christmas spirit to overtake us for a moment?
Twenty years from now I will form part of the ever-growing army of pensioners in this country and the developed world. Where will I retire? Will I move to southern Spain, which is starting to look like the Sahara Desert? Will I stay in Finland, where global warming is changing weather patterns for good?
One of the questions I’d like to know about the future is if we’ll become wiser. Or will our actions and reason for being twenty years on be guided by the same vices: greed, indifference, wars and the usual excuses for doing nothing.
During ”normal” demographic times, when pensioners made up a small part of the total population in the twentieth century, most over-64-year-olds played a passive role in society. Turning into a revolutionary or social activist was a no-no.
Edgar Lee Masters’ Spoon River Anthology created quite a commotion when it was published in 1915. The 200 free-verse epitaphs of his book spoke openly about sensitive issues like sex, moral decay and hypocrisy.
One of the poems he called ”Unknown” reveals perfectly the paradox between youth and old age. Masters writes:
In youth my wings were strong and tireless
But I did not know the mountains.
In age I knew the mountains
But my weary wings could not follow my vision
–Genius is wisdom and youth.
Does this remarkable poem tell us why humankind is still incapable of breaking the vicious cycle of greed, war, and apathy?
Is there hope that such a circle could be redrawn in the future? Could new medical breakthroughs in gerontology help resolve the problem? Could new medicines help us at age 80 to ”fly over mountains” with enough strength and wisdom?
If we resolved such a paradox, how to balance our youth with our old age, humankind would be capable of many things. It could help us for instance not to commit the same mistakes of past generations that have kept us buried in our human squalor.
”Granny-phobes?”
Staying on the topic of pensioners, Helsingin Sanomat columnist Riva Liisa Snellman took a peek at 2035 as well. By then, one in three Finns will be over 65 years old, with nearly a million people who are over 75.
Will such a large number of pensioners cause an adverse reaction in our society? Semi Purhonen, a generation researcher, told Snellman that she doesn’t believe so since family ties play a crucial role in our society. No generation will ever declare war on its grandparents, according to her.
The Helsingin Sanomat columnist offers some light-hearted views of the future. She believes that we’ll all carry chip locators to alert relatives if we forget where we are supposed to go at a certain time. Loss of memory will not be an impairment since we’ll be assisted by ”memory assistants.” They will help us with all our memory problems.
We’ll all wear bracelets in the future and they will form a standard part of our attire. ”The bracelet can distinguish sleep from a sudden illness, and it also enables the wearer to ask for help,” writes Snellman.
We’ll have so-called loneliness centers for the elderly located in countries like Germany and the United States.
Christmas 2035
Christmas Eve falls on a Monday in 2035, which means we’ll be enjoying an extra long weekend then.
I hope on that day I’ll see many grandchildren spending Christmas with us around a large table peppered with friendly chit-chat, giggles andlaughs iced with the cake of anticipation.
Since children of the future will learn how to ask serious questions, my grandchildren will ask me about how life was like when I was young. I will tell them that in the last century we had snow, which will be a rare commodity due to global warming.
I will tell them as well about the financial hiccups that Europe suffered due to countries like Greece.
”Can you imagine that a long time ago, well not that long ago,” I’d tell them as they’d hold their breathes, ”we had groups that hated other people like us because we were different from them.”
”But we won the battle,” I’d continue. ”Thanks to our war against ignorance, all types of Multicultural Finns can live today in peace in this country and be at the same time proud of their ethnic backgrounds.”
A Multicultural Finn is any person who considers himself a Finn but comes from a multicultural background. ”You are all good examples,” I’d say. ”Your great grandparents and your relatives before them were from many countries and knew the ways of many cultures. I have lived in many places during my lifetime.”
They’d ask about wars and how they ended for good on Earth.
I’d return to Master’s poem about the mountains, but recite it to them differently:
When our countries were young they waged war, turned their backs on the suffering of the world
They did not know the mountains of humanity.
After we nearly destroyed our environment and almost killed each other off we finally learned to know those mountains
But our planet and humanity were in too bad shape to fly over those mountains
–Genius is living in a world without greed and wars.
How did wars end? How did we learn to live in peace with each other? another one asked.
People got so fed up with their governments and armies that one day a huge war was declared war but nobody showed up.
The column was published in Finland Bridge issue 6/2011
By Enrique Tessieri
Perspective is one reason why Migrant Tales has grown especially after the April 17 election and become a home for a large and ever-growing number of bloggers. Thank you for your support! We have, in my opinion, become for some that critical “voice for those whose views and situation are understood poorly and heard faintly by the media, politicians and public.”
No matter what your opinion may be about the ongoing debate on the role of cultural diversity, immigrants and immigration to Finland, perspective and the role of institutional racism are some factors we must take into account when looking at the issue.
A white Finn may have a different view of the impact of racism compared with a visible immigrant or minority.
An interesting editorial by Ismo Söderling in the recent issue of Siirtolaisuus-Migration offers some interesting food for thought on the present debate. Söderling is the director of the Migration Institute.
He writes: “Researchers and experts have been familiar with anti-immigration sentiment since the 1990s — the events that took place in Joensuu are probably among its best known manifestations. There is ample research on the topic. But to put a stop to the public name-calling and labeling, we needed an experienced researcher to send a calm, modulated letter to the editor of said newspaper [Helsingin Sanomat].”
“Special researcher Minna Säävälä at Väestöliitto, the Family Federation, noted in her response that “Support for racism seems to be waning.” According to Säävälä, “a change in attitudes cannot be established on the basis of a single statement.”
Söderling drives home a valid point. Can we judge a whole country on a single survey whose sample size numbers 1,000?
In the same way we can measure a certain social ills in Finland like racism, have these polls fueled the rise of certain parties like the Persussuomalaiset (PS)? Migrant Tales has questioned some recent polls that ask loaded questions like “do you want more immigrants to move to Finland?”
Which country in the world believes there are too few immigrants? Very few if none today.
Certainly there are a lot of racist views in the PS but we unfortunately find them in other Finnish parties as well. Some are better at hiding their views on this social ill than others.
When we correctly criticize a party like the PS and some of its most notorious anti-immigration MPs like Jussi Halla-aho, are we pulling a fast one on the issue and not confronting it? Are we conveniently brushing the widespread problem under the rug?
In order to make out who holds the high ground in the ongoing debate on our ever-growing cultural diversity as a society, we have to return to perspective. Who are the alleged culprits and who are the victims. Are we hearing the victims?
Thus the way to confront racism, populism and the rise of the far right in Finland is not by attacking a single party but the issue on a national level. What role does institutional racism play in the rise of the PS. How does the silence of other parties maintain and fuel the institutional racism status quo?
I have learned an important lesson after working as a writer and journalist for about 25 years. It’s not the answers that are revealing in an interview but what the person does not say.
What is the silence emanating from of the ongoing debate on immigration in Finland?
Not hearing and acknowledging the victims of racism and exclusion but scapegoating the problem to a single party or to a group within that party.
By no means are we claiming here that two wrongs make a right. However, if we are to challenge the problem of racism and the rise nationalist populism in Finland, which gets its fuel from xenophobia, we have to attack the real culprits: ourselves and especially our institutions.
By Enrique Tessieri
I read with some dismay that 12 Perussuomalaiset (PS) party MPs have filed a complaint to the Council for Mass Media in Finland (JSN) about a cartoon that was published in the Helsinki Lutheran Church’s weekly Kirkko ja Kaupunki, according to Helsingin Sanomat. The cartoon showed PS chairman Timo Soini and a number of MPs wishing those who weren’t white, conservative and heterosexual Finns a shitty Christmas.
This story and the action taken by a group of PS MPs is highly revealing since it shows that some in the PS are just as much in the dark about free speech as they are about racism and other cultural groups.
They expose as well their distorted view of the world. It is ok to insult Muslims but not ok to make fun of the PS.
Moreover it shows that the PS considers the cartoon more offensive than the racism and hatred of some of its MPs like James Hirvisaari, who got fined for hate speech or if its members belong to neo-Nazi and racist associations like SKV.
Getting a taste of one’s medicine can be humbling experience although I think these MPs are out for blood.
They are not going to get it for a number of reasons. For one, the PS is a political party and those portrayed in the cartoon are public figures.
Another important fact is that the cartoonist, Ville Ranta, succeeded at portraying the PS as seen by some Finns: A narrow-minded racist and conservative party.
Of course the PS will try to level the playing field in favor by cheating. It will try to make a point that racism against white Finns by immigrants is the same thing. Before the PS sticks its foot in the mouth again, they should read a column on Psychology Today that asked a timely question, “Racism against whites vs. minorities: Is it the same thing?”
By Mark Phillips
So, nationalism, fascism, populism and racism – ‘who’ are they and do they share anything in common with each other? Here, I’m going to give a brief but hopefully pertinent overview. Are they Kings or Thieves? Maybe my conclusions will surprise you.
It is important to first understand that a nationalist person is a different entity to a nationalist organisation, a political party, a state institution or even a whole nation state. The difference is one of scale and of kind. A person who is a nationalist will have opinions that link their personal identity very strongly with a ‘national identity’. Nationalists often see themselves as patriots. It doesn’t really matter whether you call yourself a patriot or a nationalist; what matters is what comes from that sentiment of ‘loving your country’, and whether it’s accompanied by any kind of systematic devaluing of other nations or identities.
Public figures aside, nationalistic people who have strong political and cultural views do not necessarily have a lot of power to affect others, outside of their right to vote and their freedom to cajole their family and friends. On an individual level, a nationalist can be someone who, when discussing matters of national identity, is open, warm, culturally informed, friendly, knowledgeable, expansive and easy company, while on the other extreme, they can be cesspits of prejudice directed against people of other nations or people of their own nation.
Political parties, institutions, and various bodies on the other hand have the power to discriminate on a far larger scale, for good or ill; they can promote either tolerance or prejudice; they can highlight or ignore widespread discrimination; they can take action, impose penalties and sanctions, or provide or deny support. While many parties and organisations have sought to actively protect the rights of minorities, some have ignored the issues, have denied the specific needs of particular groups or have even advocated lesser rights for minorities, in the shape of extra requirements or fewer rights compared to normal citizens.
At its best, nationalism is a celebration of identity, tradition and culture. At its worst it can be the systematic exclusion of certain groups and minorities from the ‘family’ and from the nation’s community, thereby fuelling discrimination, violence and misery. Historically, those excluded have at various times been gypsies, Jews, people with disabilities, immigrants, the mentally ill, the religious and the non-religious. Nationalists rather than describing the national character, often fall into the trap of prescribing the national character, which ends in the rather lame attempts of the few telling the many how to be what they already are – members of the nation community; for example, Finns telling other Finns how to be Finns!
At its very worst, nationalism can be the attempted extermination of a minority. So, let’s be aware, let’s be very aware, that this is the power that identity has over us. It can bring out the best or the absolute worst, and for that reason, it is clearly our moral responsibility to acknowledge its special and powerful force in human societies. A King or a Thief? The potential is there for both.
Fascism is understood as a blend of nationalism and radicalism. Fascists believe it is the responsibility of the state to maintain and promote the national identity as well as a national community. The radicalism of fascism entails a change of society’s values towards collectivism (the national community), a redistribution of resources away from corporate elites towards ‘social’ programs and the construction of an authoritarian state (redistribution of power centrally) ; the latter is not seen as negative – the ‘authority’ of the state is envisaged as necessary, as guiding the people, and acting as sovereign guardian to the nation’s values and identity. This protection does require more power than your average state, which is why fascism jumps into bed so quickly with totalitarianism.
The appeal of fascism is that it is committed to a sense of national community. They consider the community as organic, linked by ancestry, culture and blood. Fascism in many ways hankers back to the values of tribalism, where community, ancestory and common interest set the limits to personal freedoms. As with nationalism, fascism has the potential to separate people into camps. Indeed, the national identity is seen to supersede all other categories such as age, gender, or class.
With fascism, the national identity is all too easily mythologized, frozen historically and idealised; it is imagined as being passed on by elders of the community, while in reality, in fascist states it is churned out as indoctrination from government committees sitting on high and charged with maintaining ‘culture’. This is somewhat removed from a real cultural identity, which is by contrast changing, diverse, typically shaped at the grass roots and constantly being challenged from within.
It is for this reason that the political goals of fascists often involve what for ordinary folk might seem rather oddball issues – opposing interbreeding (family policy), controlling art forms (cultural integrity), controlling language (opposition to loan words etc).
A key result of fascism is a society ruled by fear, as the consequences of being different or challenging the state-promoted norms become a whole lot more unpleasant the stronger the state becomes. This is because fascism and violence are never far apart. Fascism has the paranoid habit of declaring (violent) war on everything that is not itself. Promoting political violence has been integral to fascism as a means of renewal and national regeneration and as a means for bringing about revolution. Militarism is actively promoted and elevated, as fostering comradeship, character, discipline, physical fitness and devotion to a national cause. The militarism can also play out in the arena of perceived culture warfare and cultural self-defence.
Clearly the individual freedoms of expression that we enjoy today are inconsistent with a pure fascist vision of ‘national cohesion’, although politicians on all sides can be seen to play to the central themes of fascism: strong community, centralised authority, strong militarism, strong national identity and the interests of the ‘community’ over the interests of the individual. In themselves, they are not inherently evil themes. However, the paramilitary aspects of fascism have invariably been a hotbed for human excesses, dismissed by fascist authorities as the over-exuberant actions of a few! A King or a Thief? Almost certainly a thief, climbing on the back of what it claims is positive nationalism and a sense of community.
Populism as a political ideology is built on the idea that it represents and expresses the needs of ordinary people. Typically, an enemy is created in the form of cultural, economic and political elites. The political ideology, much like fascism, attempts to present itself as above party politics, or distinctions of left and right. A key element of populism is the ‘folksy guy’ who is in touch with ordinary folk, typically a family man, devoted, hard working, with a strong national identity – salt of the earth! Populism has great appeal because it appears to put the everyman in amongst the power-brokers.
Regardless of how populism presents itself, it promotes a top-down political authoritarianism that has much in common with Fascism or other elements of the Far Right, particularly in adopting a ‘cultural agenda’. Populism is similar to fascism in that it builds on real social divisions, this time between the masses and the elites, though it also pits nationals against non-nationals (e.g. lazy Europeans or ‘savage’ nations). Every single Populist Party in Europe takes a very strong anti-immigration and anti-EU stance.
Typically, populist parties attract nationalists and fascists into their ranks, who sympathize with the ‘them and us’ narrative and also see an opportunity to exploit populism to bring about the conditions for revolution – i.e. civil unrest. It is therefore quite normal to see the populist movements infiltrated by more extreme groups. A King or a Thief? Many would see a populist politician as an honourable thief among kings. More often they are thieves hoping to be kings. The greatest casualty of populism is perspective: there’s only one meal allowed on this menu – e.g. mass immigration is bad!
Racism is the belief in the superiority of one racial, ethnic or cultural grouping above all others. Though few people believe this implicitly, racism nevertheless plays out in overt ways such as the reasoning that indigenous people (usually the majority and usually not the first indigenous group) deserve better protection and service from the state. This kind of racism is always blind to its discrimination, instead arguing, like nationalists and fascists, that their rights of entitlement arise simply from ‘belonging to the family’.
In its mildest forms, racism can also be the much promoted sense of superiority that imagines we have the best footballers, athletes, singers, innovators, artists, entrepreneurs etc. In itself, it’s harmless, while competition among nations is a huge source of entertainment and innovation. ‘Best’ typically lasts for a short period of time, as other nations produce their own world-beaters in various fields. People are generally cognizant of the fact that the competition is a game. Some, however, appear not to have been let in on the act.
Racism as an ideological position chooses to ignore competition and diversity within its own nation’s walls and rather argues that one race, culture or ethnicity is somehow intrinsically better than another. As with fascism and nationalism, identity is considered to be fixed, historical, given and inherently good. It seeks to install one national/ethnic grouping into the permanent role of ‘winners’ in relation to all others, not because they succeed through merit or through citizenship rights, but rather, by right of birth into a very specific family grouping. And such a cultural identity is so strong that in countries where institutional racism is rampant it must nevertheless be constantly maintained, through classroom indoctrination, through controlled or self-censored media, and through a vehement opposition to anyone who would dare to question such natural entitlements.
The links between racism, nationalism, fascism and populism should be obvious. They each feed off each other and the common theme of ‘them and us’, with its various degrees of hostility towards the ‘us’, ranging from mild to severe. Nationalism on the whole promotes the idea of a national identity where the implicit assumption is that it is somehow better than the others. This is quite different to recognising that we have a national identity that has much in common with other national identities (e.g. a flag, an anthem, a few personality traits, a few food recipes and a common language/s), or an identity that entails advantages and disadvantages, and both good and not so good characteristics.
Nationalism, at its worst, involves devaluing the national identity of others. Fascism likewise promotes a strong, superior national identity and community while aggressively suppressing dissent. Populism likewise constructs internal and external enemies, in the form of various elites and also non-nationals, though it’s sowing of division is typically more languid and insidious.
With each of these ideologies, it can be said that national identity is characterised as something fixed, unique and superior, leading to strong ingroups and outgroups, and, therefore an increased potential for conflict within mixed or diverse societies. As ideologies and as tendencies, they often mix with each other.
Hence, it can happen that someone buys into the various ideologies so described, such that they perceive their national identity is in need of protection, that they have been betrayed by the ruling classes, that they should adopt military dedication to the cause, while feeling free to express open hatred of those that stand in the way of national cohesion, whether they be an internal or external foe. And in their idealism, they are simply waiting to ‘serve their nation’.
Modern psychiatry seems to identify such a combination as insanity. But it can also be seen as a natural consequence of several negative and militant ideologies coming together. Without doubt it constitutes a form of radicalisation. If problems identified within nationalist, populist and fascist discourses are couched in terms of a war, then we cannot be surprised that some people take the call to arms seriously. These same groups cannot later claim to be advocates of peace. Such hypocrisy smacks of cynicism.
A family of Kings or Thieves? Well, they all would certainly present themselves as Kings, as would-be benevolent and benign rulers in friendly dictatorships. But, I would conclude they are almost certainly thieves, robbing us of cultural, intellectual and political freedoms, sometimes at the point of a gun, sometimes by force of the majority, sometimes by cultural censorship and being told how we are supposed to be. As thieves, they have a shared brotherhood, with some sense of honour, but there is also a fair amount of backstabbing among them. It is the brutal end of politics after all, no question about that.
The hope of any populist is to find the King among them, who will lead them to the promised land. If Timo Soini were indeed appointed King, I wonder what colourful band of thieves would he be taking with him into the Palace?
It’s a long story how I ended up conscripted in the Argentinean army during the dirty war (1976-83). Being part of a country that was at war with itself was like taking a one-way stroll down the ally of hatred with a sack over your head. Even if no sack was placed over your head, your eyes could neither see nor your ears hear what was going down. Terror has a way of numbing your senses.
Taking into account the rise of racism and xenophobia in Europe and horrific examples of World War 2 and ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, it’s clear that we cannot make a pact with the devil by remaining quiet to the threat of right-wing populist and far-right parties that are gaining strength throughout Europe.
One of the reasons why too many white Europeans aren’t too concerned about the situation is because these anti-immigration parties don’t pose a direct threat to them. As we know, these parties have declared indirectly and directly war against immigrants and other minorities.
I am grateful for the years (1977-78) I spent in Argentina. Even if it changed my life as a young man, I now understand what it is to live under a ruthless dictatorship and why we must defend every day our civil rights.
In many respects populist and far-right parties are very much like those military dictatorships that ruled Latin America in the 1970s. I am certain that all hell would break loose in Europe if these types of parties got the chance to set their policies in motion.
The biggest losers would be our present democracies and civil rights, which are supposed to be inalienable.
How can I make such a claim? Easily. If you exclude and bash one minority by watering down their rights the impact is on the whole of society. Promoting social equality has the opposite effect.
I have adopted a couple out of the over 30,000 victims that disappeared in Argentina during the dirty war. They appeared by accident 33 years ago when I read about their disappearance on September 14, 1977.
Today Jorge Donato Calvo’s and his wife Adriana María Franconetti de Calvo’s story sits quietly on my desk.
According to the Buenos Aires Herald clipping, the couple left their one- and two-year old baby daughters in their home under the care of the children’s paternal grandparents and went to see a movie at the Ritz Cinema, not too far from where I used to live in Buenos Aires.
Their tragic stories was published in gruesome detail years later on a website of the victims of the dirty war of Argentina:
Adriana and Jorge were students of Buenos Aires’ National School. Jorge was a medic and he worked at the Ramos Mejía Hospital. The couple lived in Sarandi, Buenos Aires province.
The couple was kidnapped when they were standing in a line of the Ritz Cinema in the neighborhood of Belgrano in Buenos Aires. They were seen at the ESMA (Navy Petty-Officers School of Mechanics); Adriana was “transferred” one or two days after.
Adriana’s sister and brother, Anna María and Eduardo, are also missing. Her father Eduardo was kidnapped together with her sister and brother and taken to the “Club Atlético” detention center where his children were tortured in front of him. His abductors interrogated him about Adriana’s whereabouts. They freed him but he died a short while later of a cardiac arrest.
*The term dirty war came about when a reporter asked an officer how he’d describe the civil war in Argentina. He said: “It was a dirty war.”