Public opposition to Islamisation translated into success for political parties

It has been found that in the country where the public is the most opposed to Islamisation, Greece, there is no successful populist right party, but that in two of the three Scandinavian countries where the public is the least opposed to Islamisation, there is such a party.

The gist of the findings of such studies is that opposition to Islamisation is widespread in all Western European countries. The question they raise
is, why is this opposition not translated into success for anti-immigrant parties in certain countries like Sweden, Germany and the UK?

The answer is:

It is not the message itself but rather the credibility of the actor who delivers it that makes the crucial difference. " Reputational shields" are therefore thought to be helpful to political parties on three levels:

- 1. As a valuable resource for the anti-immigrant party in elite debate
- 2. As external justification for voters
- 3. As internal justification for voters.

Unfortunately, this is the case for BNP, they lack " reputational shields" on a couple of areas, lacking a secondary platform and ”un-tainted” leadership.

For example, a party that has a legacy as an agrarian party will be able to use its reputation shield to fend off criticisms from other elite actors accusing the party of racism and extremism. By contrast, old fascist parties or brand new parties do not have such reputational shields at their disposal when facing such criticism. Second, a voter can more easily justify voting for a party proposing radically restrictive immigration policies to his or her peers and community as not being an act in support of racism or extremism if the party in question is known for promoting " other policies", too. Third, voters can more easily justify their choice to themselves as not being motivated by racism when the party in question has a ”reputational shield”.

BNP and a few of these parties really needs a solid " secondary platform. F example as a " tax cut" party, or " law and order" party. It will take them a few years if they avoid making future mistakes (if they implement this agenda). The potential is there.

All anti-Islamisation parties of Western Europe should study the " Norwegian model". The Progress Party, currently the most successful anti-immigration party in Europe, (www.frp.no) currently enjoying 27% on the polls (q1 09) and received 22% last election. It has a " reputational shields" as it started out as a " tax cut" party but took on anti-Immigration in the early 90’s. They have a good strategy where " modern rhetoric" and several " female" spokespersons is a part of the picture.

Britain, France, and Sweden are stuck in this quagmire in particular. Tainted " right wing" leaders (background from racial conservative movements) who are indirectly dissalowing the Jihadi resistance movement from reaching its full potential. However, as noted in another chapter, it is unlikely if remaining too moderate in the foreseeable future will allow any party to gain any influence whatsoever though. Perhaps remaining small and much more “hardcore” is the way to go afterall? Germany, on the other hand, is a special case though. The country still suffers from severe psychological trauma and is simply unable to mount any form of political defence.