This book takes a critical approach which assumes that responding to the radical right is not a single process leading to a homogeneous set of measures. I seek to open the black box of the policy process leading to the implementation of measures against the radical right. In order to do so, a Foucauldian influence has accompanied the construction of this research. Foucault argues that
the state is nothing else but the effect … of incessant transactions which modify, or move, or drastically change, or insidiously shift sources of finance, modes of investment, decision-making centres, forms and types of control, relationships between local powers, the central authority, and so on. In short, the state has no heart, as we well know, but not just in the sense that it has no feelings, either good or bad, but it has no heart in the sense that it has no interior. The state is nothing else but the mobile effect of a regime of multiple governmentalities.1
(Foucault, 2008, p. 77)
This approach advocates for paying attention to practices, knowledge, and decisions in order to identify how the governance of political radicalism is operationalised. The Foucauldian concept of governmentality focuses the attention upon the articulation between power and knowledge, that is, a focus on discovering “which kind of rationality public actors are using” (Foucault, 1980, p. 226). Foucault finally underlines that the focus should not be on the legal order, but rather on the multiple practices of governmentalities that rely on technical procedures, on instruments, and on strategic power relations that are unstable and reversible (Foucault, 1994, p. 584). In short, this book examines the political rationalities organising the power relations (Lascoumes, 2004, p. 5) to regulate political radicalism.
Actors’ perceptions on measures against the radical right
Drawing on these observations, the literature on the reactions to the radical right has questioned the exercise of state power on a political phenomenon. Some have questioned the selective use of the repertoire of instruments. For instance, Hans-Gerd Jaschke (1991) explores how German authorities have implemented measures protecting the constitutional order in Germany (see Chapter 3) and shows that the protection of democracy is closely associated with the idea that political radicalism needs to be handled with an internal security approach. This conveniently prevents political authorities from debating on the opportunity to proscribe movements and on the relevance of introducing other types of measures to address political radicalism (e.g. preventive measures). In this way, Jaschke shows how political radicalism has become a matter of domestic security, especially during the 1970s when Germany faced a wave of left-wing violence. He argues that the concept of militant democracy enshrined in German legislation has been used by the government to legitimise the implementation of repressive security measures. This example illustrates the central role of state actors in the construction of practices repressing political radicalism. Another decisive element is the diversity of state actors involved in the formulation and implementation process of responses to right-wing radicalism. In Germany, the highest executive and judicial authorities acknowledged the need to lead an intellectual and political debate to discuss what radicalism is. But in the 1970s, as left-wing terrorism emerged, the assumption that an intellectual and political debate was legitimate became of secondary importance. This attitude became unsuitable in the 1990s when right-wing violence became a salient issue and civil society groups organised against right-wing radicalism. In this context, Jaschke argues that the role of interactions occurring between the institutions in charge of the protection of democracy and the critical contribution of civil society should be explored. In sum, Jaschke invites his fellow scholars to analyse the responses to the radical right not as the result of mere interactions between radical groups and security authorities, but rather as a complex phenomenon encompassing a myriad of public actors with various backgrounds and perspectives. In addition, the various actors involved in the regulation of the radical right might express different perceptions of the legal arsenal. Britta Schellenberg (2014) conducted research focusing on the small town of Mügeln in Saxony where right-wing riots occurred in 2007. No consensus existed on the motives of the riots which triggered public debates. Whereas the Saxon State Security Department and the Mayor of Mügeln denied the racist nature of the riots, representatives from left-wing parties promptly denounced the racist character of the violent event. Schellenberg identifies different frames among individuals: members of left-wing parties recognised the racist motive of the riots, whereas the Christian Democrat Party belittled the racist dimension of the event. This research highlights the heterogeneous character of perceptions, suggesting that an approach based on actors’ frames and perceptions might be helpful to better understand the rationale behind the regulation of right-wing radicalism.
