For years “Center” it was presented as the only “correct” political identity that you can have. Major systemic media abroad always positively note that someone can be described as a “centrist politician”, they count it among the “qualifications” – the word in quotation marks, if you look at it from the side of society, except if you look at it from the side of the system that loves political games. This identity was mainly claimed by Kyriakos Mitsotakis. And this is what Emmanuel Macron tried to portray.
Nearby is theoretical support through the “two extremes” theory, which has insisted that democracy is threatened by both the far right and the left, or alternatively, both right and left populism.
And, of course, a spontaneous tendency was added to all this people to declare themselves “centrists” at a time when “political passions” and clear dividing lines were generally rejected, and some proclaimed both “the end of history” and “the end of ideologies.”
But all these positions overlook an important parameter.
What has been presented as the “Centre” in recent years, especially in Emmanuel Macron’s version, was neither a “balanced position” nor simply a position in the “middle” of the political spectrum.
On the contrary, it was much more of a combination between an aggressive neoliberalism and a rather authoritarian perception of power, which in some cases was combined with progressive positions on mild issues of individual rights (for example, regarding the marriage of same-sex couples), as opposed to traditional law. Certainly, especially in Europe, it was a political identity that eventually came to be identified with “hardline” positions on issues such as immigration and refugees.
And while he has strong rhetoric about the rule of law and “institutions”, at the same time he has had no problem with police brutality and repression.
Suffice it to recall that in Greece this version of the “Centre” was the one that fanatically supported the memorandums and exasperated all those who protested against the barbaric reactionary austerity that was imposed.
It is no accident that the terminology “Extreme Center” has been reserved to describe these locations and these currents. Because it captures their aggressive nature and bias.
Today, these currents of the “Center” are trying to present themselves as guarantors of institutions in Europe and as a real swamp against the threat from the far right.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Why was the “Extreme Center” which paved the way for the far right in Europe.
It was she who, pursuing an aggressive policy at the expense of the people, fueled discontent and indignation that was looking for a way out.
It was something that persistently and systematically slandered solidarity, resistance, struggle, movements, unions, and the left.
And, of course, it was the one that adopted the far-right refugee and immigration agenda, ostensibly to stop it, although in practice it only succeeded in legitimizing it, “normalizing” it.
In effect, it has pushed wider sections of society into the arms of the far right, pushing them to the economic and social fringes.
That is why even today it cannot put up a wall against the onslaught of the ultra-right. He cannot even mobilize his audience in this direction. In France, while left-wing voters overwhelmingly voted for candidates from Macron’s faction when necessary to avoid electing a far-right MP, voters for the French president were much more reluctant to vote left-wing to stop the fascists.
Simply put: “Center”, or rather “Extreme Center” today is a minority faction that believes that things are going in the right direction, it is a faction that responds to the anxiety of society and the demand of the majority. changes: “you live in the best world – head” is the faction that when they see social explosions the first thing they think is “why aren’t they eating biscuit?”.
Such a space is not an obstacle, but a bridgehead for the far-right.
The far-right and how they offer so-called “protest” and offer conservatism, nationalism and racism as a substitute for “community” can only be answered by a faction that reminds us what democracy is all about. A faction that sees social protest and affirmation as a force for progress. A faction that insists on redistributing income in order to have real rather than perceived social cohesion. A faction that wants a welfare state to have a “sense of security” and reduce inequality. A faction that deals with immigrant and refugee issues in terms of humanity, solidarity and integration, not “making enemies”.
Because the far right and its rise is not a sign that society as a whole is becoming more reactionary or moving “further to the right”. That would be a dangerous generalization.
The far right is rising because the wider democratic space is in disarray and allowed the “Extreme Center” to dominate. Because even when he’s not trying to self-destructively “become the Center,” he chooses introversion over openness to society. Why doesn’t he try to bring program and policy back to the discussion, not just slogans.
If he does so, that is, if the democratic space manages to agree and talk, mobilize society and make it an ally, as it happened in France, it shows that he can really stop the far right, unlike the Center. .