The electoral success of radical right parties throughout Western Europe is the biggest change to these formerly stable party systems. Several studies have identified that mainstream parties can shape the trajectory of radical right parties. Our aim is to contribute to this literature, and to investigate if and how radical right parties gain from mainstream party recognition. Theoretically, we draw on the literature that has suggested that when aiming to explain the legitimization of radical right parties, we need to consider that many individuals in Western Europe are influenced by an anti-prejudice norm when forming preferences towards such parties. We hypothesize that when mainstream parties signal that it is acceptable to associate with radical right parties’ they challenge the anti-prejudice norm that dissuade voters from such parties. In addition, individuals with lower internal motivation to control prejudice (IMCP) are more susceptible to be affected by mainstream party recognition of radical right parties as those with high IMCP have a stronger internalized anti-prejudice norm. We evaluate the effects of changes in the normative context in a survey experiment (N = 1133) by manipulating mainstream party legitimization of a radical right party, the Sweden Democrats, before the Swedish parliamentary election in 2018. Our results suggest that when mainstream parties challenge the anti-prejudice norm, individuals are more likely to sympathize with radical right parties. Moreover, the effect of mainstream party recognition is moderated by IMCP – individuals with a low motivation to appear non-prejudiced are more influenced by mainstream party legitimization of a radical right party.

Mainstream facilitation of the radical right is a thoroughly studied phenomenon. There is, however, some debate about how different mainstream parties affect the electoral fortunes of radical right parties. Previous research is in disagreement, as some argue that mainstream right parties play a key role in the facilitation of the radical right, while others claim that mainstream left parties are the central actors. This article argues that this confusion in the literature may be a consequence of several difficult choices related to data and methodological issues. By using data at the individual and the candidate level from the 2009 European Parliament elections, this article is able to offer a strategy to overcome these issues. The findings suggest that mainstream right parties play a key role in the facilitation of the electoral success of the radical right. By connecting individual voters with their representatives, it is shown that the more negative mainstream right parties are towards immigration, the more likely their voters are to support radical right parties. This article is an example of the fact that precise data at the expense of number of cases can be beneficial, especially when the literature is in a state of disagreement.

Across Europe the populist radical right has transformed the previously stable party systems. Under what circumstances does the electoral success of populist radical right parties translate into policy impact? By looking at Swedish local politics, this paper studies the role of the Sweden Democrats in refugee reception policy as a case for understanding whether electoral success can lead to policy impact for radical right parties. The results indicate that the sheer size of populist radical right parties in local parliament increases their policy impact both indirectly through policy co-optation by both left and right mainstream parties, and directly by cooperating with mainstream right parties. Using a mixed-methods approach, this paper argues that the mechanism underpinning the relationship between size and policy influence depends on the strategic response by mainstream parties to increased electoral competition. Right mainstream parties are likely to cooperate with radical right parties as the ideologically most coherent coalition, while mainstream left parties tend to seek a cross-bloc coalition. 

According to influential accounts, the rise of populist radical right parties is attributable to a “crisis of representation” that stems from mainstream parties’ failure to represent the views of voters on key political issues. We argue that this claim should be approached empirically by studying the degree of opinion congruence between politicians and voters. Using detailed Swedish data, we find that the views of those who vote for radical right parties are not unique in being poorly matched to those of politicians from the traditional/mainstream parties. Moreover, these voters are not much better matched to their populist radical right representatives, than they are to representatives of the main traditional conservative parties. In fact, the only issue on which radical right parties seem to fill a representational gap is on the issue of immigration. We conclude that our study provides little support for the narrative in the “crisis of representation” literature.