In my opinion In Finland, the far-right can be understood as an underlying connection of ideological alignment shared between political parties, political groups within parties, individuals. Ideological outlooks that are characterized by extreme nationalist, anti-immigrant, and too often racist views.
These groups typically promote the preservation of a perceived “pure” or “authentic” white Finnish identity, which they see as threatened by a loss of “traditional” social values, immigration, multiculturalism, and specified scapegoated communities – with Muslim, African and Roma communities being the primary (though not the only ones, the list goes far longer and includes every group or community that isn’t perceived Finnish) targets. A strong belief in the “Great Replacement Theory” and climate change denial, as well as a rejection of liberal democratic principles, free media, diversity, and policies that promote inclusion, human rights, and equality frameworks.
The far-right is far from a unified, homogeneous movement confined to a single, well-defined party. Instead, its influence often spreads across various parties, including those that present themselves as centrist, national (center-right or right-wing), and even occasionally “liberal” to some extent. Within these parties, a wide spectrum of views exists, ranging from liberal to highly conservative. As a result, tolerance levels—and attitudes toward racism—vary significantly across this ideological scale, reflecting the diversity of opinions within these political groups.
When key triggers such as xenophobia, Islamophobia, the questioning of human rights (under the guise of “security”), migration, and the right to seek asylum are activated—often in response to specific events or contexts—they are typically deployed to target minorities. It is still surprising to some when populist rhetoric and calls for restrictive or exclusionary laws, aimed at one or more racialized minorities, emerge from members of mainstream political parties. These parties often align with far-right, explicitly nationalist factions. Given the shared ideological foundations of nationalism, aversion to foreigners, racial intolerance, and beliefs in racial superiority, their cooperation and partnership are unsurprising.
The term “BURANA,” an inside joke in Finland akin to a “one-size-fits-all” solution, is a fitting metaphor for the far-right’s scapegoating tactic. This rhetorical “duct tape” is used to channel public frustration toward specific minority groups. During times of perceived economic hardship, far-right movements attempt to garner support by positioning themselves as the defenders of “the originals,” while portraying racialized minorities as outsiders and threats. This oversimplified narrative is used to blame these communities for everything from rising prices, cuts in healthcare, and higher taxes—even bad weather, the only aspect of climate change they are willing to acknowledge. Conveniently, this tactic distracts from the far-right’s own political and economic failures, deflecting attention to external scapegoats.
*Ibuprofen, or Burana, is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug that is used to relieve pain, fever, and inflammation.
