Political Ideologies and their Perspectives on Human Rights

• Different political ideologies like liberalism or socialism prioritize different human rights.

• There is an ongoing debate about whether human rights are truly universal or culturally constructed.

• Balancing universal principles with different cultural perspectives is a challenge, especially for courts such as the European Court of Human Rights.


Overview: Political Ideologies & Their Perspectives on Human Rights

The relationship between political ideology and human rights is complex. Moreover, this relationship can differ according to which ideology an individual adheres. For example, cultural relativists view human rights as culturally constructed and believe they should be applied differently across societies, whereas others believe in universal human rights standards, which apply universally regardless of culture. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) plays a key role in protecting human rights, with the concept of ‘the margin of appreciation’ providing some flexibility to states based on cultural context. This has been applied variously in cases related to the manifestation of religious symbols in Europe, as well as in cases related to abortion and to LGBTQ+ rights, and can be used to illustrate the evolving stance of the ECHR. There is an ongoing debate around cultural relativism, universalism, and the consistent application of the margin of appreciation.

Overview: Political Ideologies & Their Perspectives on Human Rights

Overview: Political Ideologies & Their Perspectives on Human Rights

The following text is based on an interview

How Do Political Ideologies Affect Human Rights? 

Political ideology can significantly affect human rights in different ways and its impact is very complex. One political ideology may prioritize a certain right above another. For example, liberal ideology emphasizes the importance of freedom of speech, assembly, and freedom of expression, i.e., it places a lot of emphasis on individual freedom and civil liberties because of liberalism’s focus on individualism. Differently, socialist ideologies prioritize economic rights and rights pertaining to access to health care and education. Moreover, an authoritarian ideology may restrict certain rights in the name of control, stability, and a sense of security.

What Are Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights Standards and How Do They Intersect?

Cultural relativism and human rights standards are two contrasting approaches to the concept of human rights. Cultural relativism is based on the idea that human rights are not absolute or universal. It posits that they are culturally constructed and, therefore, not objective. This means that they are applicable differently in different cultures. Thus, cultural relativism acknowledges the diversity of cultures and traditions around the world and argues that human rights should be understood and applied in ways that are consistent with different cultures and traditions. 

Contrarily, universal human rights standards are applied to all individuals regardless of their cultural or political context. That is to say that the same rights are afforded to everyone regardless of who or where they are. In doing so, they dismiss the differences between the different communities.

These approaches (cultural relativism and universal human rights) are the subject of great debate in academia. On the one hand, proponents of cultural relativism argue that understanding and respecting the local culture is essential to promoting human rights, and that viewing human rights as universal dismisses the differences between communities. By taking a post-colonial approach, many cultural relativists contend that the notion of universal human rights is a Western imposition. On the other hand, universal human rights advocates argue that all humans deserve the same basic rights and that the law must be based upon this.

The European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) was established in the aftermath of World War II with the aim of promoting and protecting human rights in Europe. The foundation for the ECHR was laid with the adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in 1950. The ECHR was drafted within the Council of Europe, an intergovernmental organization founded in 1949 to promote cooperation and human rights in Europe. The Council of Europe, distinct from the European Union, sought to create a common legal framework for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms across its member states. The ECHR was one of the primary instruments developed for this purpose.

The ECHR came into force on September 3, 1953, after being ratified by a sufficient number of member states. The convention set out a range of civil and political rights and established the legal framework for the protection of these rights at the regional level.

The ECHR also provided for the establishment of a judicial body to enforce its provisions — the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The Court was officially inaugurated in 1959 and began its operations in 1960. One significant feature of the ECHR was the ability of individuals to bring cases directly to the Court. This allowed individuals to seek redress for alleged violations of their rights after exhausting domestic remedies.

Over the years, the Court evolved, and additional protocols were added to the ECHR to enhance and expand human rights protections. The Court's jurisdiction was gradually extended, and its role in interpreting and developing human rights law in Europe became increasingly significant.

Today, the European Court of Human Rights stands as a crucial institution for the protection of human rights in Europe, providing a forum for individuals and states to address alleged violations and contributing to the development of a common European understanding of human rights principles.

The Margin of Appreciation at the ECHR

The ‘margin of appreciation’ is a legal tool used by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Initially introduced in the 1960s, this legal doctrine acknowledges that different member states may interpret and apply certain human rights standards differently based on their unique cultural, historical, and social contexts.

The margin of appreciation essentially grants a degree of flexibility to individual states in implementing certain human rights obligations, recognizing that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. This concept was particularly crucial during the early years of the ECHR, when the court had to navigate diverse legal traditions and political systems among its member states.

Over time, the margin of appreciation has evolved through a dynamic interplay between legal decisions and changing societal norms. While initially intended to accommodate diversity, the concept has been subject to ongoing debate and refinement. Critics argue that it could potentially be used to justify human rights violations, while proponents maintain that it allows for a nuanced understanding of cultural differences without compromising fundamental rights.

The evolution of the margin of appreciation reflects the ongoing challenge of balancing universal human rights principles with the need to respect the diversity of legal systems and cultural contexts within Europe. As human rights jurisprudence continues to develop, the concept remains a significant aspect of legal discourse.

An example of this is the case of Muslims women’s headscarf decided at the ECHR. In these cases, the Court has allowed member states to decide whether the manifestation of religious symbols, e.g., the wearing of veils, was incompatible with the notion of public order enshrined in article 9.2 of the ECHR. While article 9 (1) protects “freedom of thought, conscience, and religion”, Article 9 (2) limits this right in the name of public safety, public order, etc. In the case of the veil, European countries have constructed the veil as an element able to endanger public order and so in need of regulation, although there was no proof of this danger. In those cases, the ECHR has widened the margin of appreciation, leaving member states to decide which religious symbols could endanger the public order of European societies.

Scholars have widely criticized those decisions, contending that the ECHR’s decisions regarding christian symbols contrast with those that concern Islamic symbols (as in the comparison between Dahlab v Switzerland and Lautsi v Italy). If you compare the ECHR’s decisions related to the Muslim veil with those related to Christian religious symbols (such as in the case of Lautsi v. Italy), you can see how they are treated differently.

This is an example of how the application of the margin of appreciation could be applied differently. Indeed, it is important to note that in cases related to the wearing of the Muslim veil, the ECHR defined the headscarf as oppressive towards women, without considering whether Muslims consider the practice  oppressive. In doing so, it could be argued that they are solely applying a Western/liberal understanding of women’s freedom.

Another example is that of abortion in Ireland. Before the recent change in the law in this regard, there were cases decided by the European Court of Human Rights concerning Irish women's right to abortion. Here, the European Court of Human Rights left a great margin of appreciation, refusing to interfere with the law in Ireland. The Court took into consideration the fact that Ireland is a Catholic country and has a specific moral tradition regarding the issue of abortion. Thus, it widened the margin of appreciation, allowing Ireland to forbid abortion. Hence, the right to have an abortion was not obtained through the ECHR, but by a national referendum in Ireland in 2018.

Critics argue that the ECHR has used the margin of appreciation inconsistently, and for this reason, it is seen by some as a political tool, which the court can choose to apply or not. 

Often, the decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights have changed along with societal and political changes in Europe. 

For instance, in cases related to the manifestation of religious symbols (such as cases related to the wearing of the muslim veil and the building of minarets), the ECHR has widened the margin of appreciation, leaving member states considerable discretion. On the contrary, it has traditionally restricted the margin of appreciation in relation to LGBTQ+ rights. In fact, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has witnessed a notable development in LGBTQ rights, progressively recognizing and affirming the importance of protecting the rights of individuals regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. In landmark cases such as E.B. v. France and Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, the ECHR played a pivotal role in advancing LGBTQ rights by interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights in a manner that reinforces the principles of non-discrimination and respect for private and family life.



Classical liberalism is rooted in individual rights and limited government intervention. Over time, it has evolved to encompass political and economic dimensions. While political liberalism focuses on individual rights and democratic governance, economic liberalism, as exemplified by Adam Smith, emphasizes free-market principles. The transition from liberalism to capitalism, as explored through the works of Karl Marx, reveals the abstract nature of value in markets and the commodification of labor. Capitalism later gave rise to neoliberalism in the mid-20th century, with a greater emphasis on the free market and limited government intervention. Neoliberalism is praised for promoting economic growth but criticized for contributing to income inequality and neglecting social issues. The debate extends to its impact on human rights, with concerns about labor deregulation, austerity, privatization, and potential infringements on rights.



The following text is based on an interview

What Is Liberalism?

Classical liberalism is a political and philosophical ideology that emphasizes individual rights and limited government intervention in economic affairs. In general, it places a great emphasis on the protection of civil liberties, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the rule of law. Moreover, liberalism usually supports a democratic system and a free-market economy.

The majority of scholars place the origins of liberalism with John Locke and Thomas Hobbes — two 17th century British philosophers — who called for a different approach to the state.

Liberalism has also been important in relation to individual women’s rights: an example is the work of John Stewart Mill, an important British liberal thinker. He was one of the first philosophers in Europe to speak about women’s freedom and women’s rights, which very much influenced the suffragette movement and what followed. 

How Has Liberalism Adapted Over Time?

Liberalism has changed over time based on different cultural and historical contexts  in different countries. Political liberalism and economic liberalism, while sharing a common historical lineage, diverge in their focus and objectives. 

Political liberalism centers on principles of individual rights, democratic governance, and the rule of law, as exemplified by philosophers like John Locke. In contrast, economic liberalism, as articulated by figures such as Adam Smith, emphasizes free-market principles, limited government intervention, and the belief in the efficiency of market mechanisms to promote economic prosperity. While political liberalism addresses issues of governance and civil liberties, economic liberalism pertains more specifically to economic policies and the role of the state in the market economy.

Initially, liberalism focused mostly on economic exchange and on individual rights. Hereafter, liberalism underwent a transformative evolution into capitalism, which represents a distinct shift in its understanding of social relationships and market dynamics. This transition extended beyond the traditional exchange of goods between individuals. Capitalism introduced a more intricate framework wherein the market transcended its concrete manifestations, assuming the characteristics of an abstract entity. In the context of this evolution, Karl Marx's conceptualization of commodities and commodification is particularly illuminating. Marx argued that in a capitalist system, commodities are not simply physical goods but have a dual nature: they have use-values and exchange-values. The use-value pertains to the inherent utility or functionality of a commodity, for example, a fishing rod, which can be used to catch fish. While the exchange-value reflects its worth in terms of other commodities, for example, gold, which can be exchanged for different quantities of various things. This encapsulates the abstract nature of value within the market.

Furthermore, Marx contended that commodification extends beyond the physical goods themselves to include labor power. In a capitalist society, labor becomes a commodity that is subjected to market forces and alienated from the workers who produce it. This commodification process, according to Marx, contributes to the dehumanization of social relationships, where individuals and their labor are reduced to commodities to be bought and sold in the abstract market.

Thus, the transition from liberalism to capitalism not only redefined economic transactions, but also paved the way for Marx's critique of the commodification inherent in capitalist systems, shedding light on the profound socio-economic changes that accompanied this evolution.

Capitalism then evolved into what we call today neoliberalism in the mid-20th century; although, again, this is understood and implemented differently in different socio-political contexts.

Neoliberalism is an economic and political philosophy that is associated with a belief in free-market capitalism, limited government intervention in the economy, and an emphasis on individual entrepreneurship and competition. Like any complex ideology, neoliberalism has both positive and negative aspects, and perspectives on its impact vary. 

Neoliberal policies are often credited with fostering economic growth by promoting market efficiency, innovation, and competition. Proponents argue that these factors contribute to overall prosperity and that minimal government intervention allows markets to allocate resources more efficiently. Neoliberalism places a strong emphasis on individual freedoms, including economic freedom. Advocates argue that reducing government interference allows individuals to make choices in the marketplace, promoting personal and economic liberty.

On the other hand, one of the major criticisms of neoliberalism is its association with growing income inequality. Critics argue that policies favoring the wealthy and corporations can lead to a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. They contend that neoliberal policies may neglect social issues and public welfare, leading to insufficient investment in education, healthcare, and social safety nets, and disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations. Neoliberalism assumes that markets will self-regulate, but critics argue that this can lead to market failures, such as financial crises and environmental degradation, due to the lack of regulatory oversight. Indeed, some critics assert that neoliberal policies may undermine democratic governance by concentrating economic power in the hands of a few powerful corporations and limiting the ability of governments to regulate in the public interest. The emphasis on privatization and reducing the role of the state may result in the erosion of public services, with critics arguing that this can lead to the prioritization of profit over the public good.

Neoliberalism's emphasis on free-market principles and limited government intervention has also sparked debates regarding its impact on human rights, with critics contending that economic policies associated with neoliberalism can potentially undermine social equality and essential human rights. Neoliberalism's impact on human rights is exemplified by policies such as labor deregulation, austerity measures, the privatization of essential services, income inequality, and the potential infringement on indigenous rights, sparking debates over the balance between economic principles and the safeguarding of fundamental human rights.



Socialism places a focus on economic equality and social justice, emphasizing healthcare, education, and housing. Originating alongside communism in the 19th century, socialism sought a fair economic and legal system. Socialists focus on human rights, advocating for wealth distribution, fair wages, and aiding vulnerable groups. The relationship between socialism and human rights varies, spanning from democratic to authoritarian forms. Proponents highlight the positive impact economic equality has on human rights, citing initiatives such as universal healthcare. Criticism often focuses on concerns about individual liberties in authoritarian regimes, emphasizing the importance of political pluralism. Socialism's evolution has involved various academic and political shifts, with social neoliberalism emerging as a hybrid blending market-oriented policies with social safety nets.



The following text is based on an interview

What is Socialism?

Socialism is a political ideology that seeks to promote economic equality and social justice. In its approach to human rights, its focus is on systems of inequalities. Socialism also places an emphasis on healthcare, education, and housing.

Socialism and communism grew together in Europe. The year 1848 witnessed the first revolutions against the monarchy in Italy, France, and Germany: those revolutions were led by socialist ideals. While socialism advocated for a more just economic and legal system, communists (through Karl Marx’s Manifesto) were critical of socialists, i.e., while socialists were acting within the system of the state, communists wanted to change the state system of power altogether.

For Marx, the law was a tool of the bourgeois to maintain power and the oppression of the proletariat. He believed that once the system of oppression is destroyed, the law would become redundant. 

Socialists emphasize social justice as an essential component of human rights. For example, socialists advocate for the equitable distribution of wealth, opportunities, resources, fair wages, and helping the most vulnerable groups in the community.

Socialism and Human Rights

The intricate relationship between socialism and human rights is contingent on the nuanced interpretation and application of socialist principles, which span a spectrum from democratic socialism to more authoritarian variants. 

In favor of socialism and human rights, there exists a narrative emphasizing positive aspects: economic equality, for instance, takes center stage, as socialism often champions the reduction of economic inequality through the advocacy of wealth and resource redistribution. Proponents argue that this contributes significantly to the realization of economic and social rights. They contend that initiatives such as universal healthcare, education, and social security fortify human rights fulfillment, particularly in the realms of social and economic well-being. Workers' rights are spotlighted, aligning with socialist ideologies that underscore the importance of fair wages, safe working conditions, and collective bargaining. This emphasis resonates with the broader principles of economic and social justice.

On the contrary, critiques against socialism and its impact on human rights also emerge, such as concerns about individual liberties and centralized state control in authoritarian regimes. Challenges related to limited political pluralism are highlighted, as some socialist regimes face criticism for restricting political diversity and suppressing opposition. Such actions can undermine political rights and freedoms. However, those challenges are associated with socialist authoritarian regimes. It is crucial to acknowledge the diversity within socialism, ranging from democratic and decentralized forms to more centralized and authoritarian iterations. The impact on human rights is inherently tied to how socialist principles are implemented and balanced against considerations such as individual freedoms and political pluralism. In practice, the relationship between socialism and human rights unfolds within the specific policies and practices of the governing body in question.

Socialists don't criticize individual rights, but they state that individual rights alone are not enough. They also place more importance on cultural relativism than liberals. However, at times, liberal countries like the UK are sometimes less restrictive than more socialist countries like France and Germany in relation to freedom of religion, for example.

The Development of Socialism Over Time

There have been two developments in socialism over time: the academic development and the political development, and both have been very different. On the academic level, there are a lot of new studies based on socialist ideas on how to better the system. These may consider the environment and new forms of economy, for example. On the political level, before, socialist ideas were at the forefront of certain political dialogues; however, today, neoliberalism has become a prominent ideology, even in more socialist political systems, creating different hybrids. Social neoliberalism represents a hybrid approach that combines market-oriented economic policies with a recognition of the need for social safety nets, and its political development involves a pragmatic blending of neoliberal principles with a commitment to addressing social issues, aiming to strike a balance between economic efficiency and social welfare.



Anarchism advocates for the elimination of hierarchical structures, including the state, envisioning a society based on voluntary cooperation and individual freedom. In terms of human rights, it focuses on individual autonomy, equality, and the rejection of oppressive systems. Murray Bookchin is a notable advocate of contemporary anarchism. He proposed direct democracy, which influenced the revolution in Rojava as a real-world example. Anarchism, despite not rejecting human rights, criticizes their centralized enforcement, proposing a form of participatory society. The intellectual roots trace to figures such as Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Goldman, who, amongst many others, shaped the diverse range of concepts within anarchism. On an academic level, contemporary anarchism explores social structures beyond the confines of the state, emphasizing nuanced governance for modern interconnected communities. However, on a political level, there are no clear examples of the adoption of anarchism, with Rojava being a potential exception.



The following text is based on an interview

What is Anarchism?

Anarchism is a political ideology that advocates for the abolition of hierarchical structures of power, including the state. It envisions a society based on voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, and individual freedom. Therefore, in the context of human rights, anarchism emphasizes the importance of individual autonomy, equality, and the elimination of what is considered a system of oppression. Behind anarchist ideas is the destruction of the nation state. Anarchists believe that many problems arise from this form of governance and organization, especially problems experienced by minorities. Anarchists also advocate for the creation of a system in which democracy is more direct.

Murray Bookchin is a famous proponent of this idea. He advocated for a society based on direct democracy. For example, in a city, instead of having a mayor, each area is directly governed by groups of people that represent all parts of the society, e.g., women, men, different religions, etc. In this system, smaller places are linked to bigger places via a direct administration. His ideas inspired the revolution in Rojava, which is one of the few real-world examples we have of an anarchist system in practice, although it is still deeply under-researched.

Anarchism and Human Rights

Anarchism does not reject human rights and focuses on individual rights in particular.

For Chomsky, another renowned scholar, anarchism aligns with the concept of human rights in relation to providing individual autonomy, self-determination, and the rejection of the oppressive systems of power; however, he criticizes the concentration of power in the hands of human rights institutions and/or governments.

Thus, he is essentially challenging the traditional notion of human rights insofar as they have to be enforced and protected by the state. Chomsky argues that a participatory society can uphold and promote human rights more effectively than state institutions.

Anarchists argue that there is too much of a legalist approach to human rights and that freedom, justice and equality can be achieved through direct participation in democracy rather than through legal institutions. Thus, they criticize the institutional system of human rights. 

How Has Anarchism Developed Over Time?

The intellectual origins of anarchism can be traced to key figures who laid the groundwork for this political philosophy. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) is often regarded as the first self-proclaimed anarchist. Proudhon's work criticized private property and envisioned a society based on voluntary cooperation and mutualism or working together. Another important thinker is Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876) who emphasized the abolition of both the state and capitalism in favor of a decentralized, self-governing society. Furthermore, Peter Kropotkin (1842–1921) emphasized the importance of cooperation and mutual aid in social evolution. He advocated for anarcho-communism, envisioning a society based on communal ownership and distribution of resources. Emma Goldman (1869–1940) is another central figure. She was an influential anarchist and feminist thinker. Goldman's writings and speeches advocated for a wide range of social issues, including labor rights, free love, and opposition to war. Her work, which includes Anarchism and Other Essays (1910), contributed significantly to the development of anarchism in the United States.

These key figures, among others, played pivotal roles in shaping the intellectual foundations of anarchism, influencing diverse strands within the broader anarchist tradition, including mutualism, collectivism, anarcho-communism, and individualist anarchism.

On a political level, anarchism has never adapted as there is no clear example of a system that is clearly based on anarchist ideas (Rojava being a possible exception).

On an academic and theoretical level, in the past, anarchist theory centered on the destruction of the state. Now, while this is still prevalent, there is more theory based on different social structures. While traditional anarchist ideologies centered on envisioning human flourishing in the absence of a centralized state, contemporary discourse reflects a shift towards the exploration and development of representative social structures that extend beyond the confines of the state. This evolution suggests a nuanced engagement with governance, emphasizing the importance of accountable and participatory frameworks, which address societal needs, while acknowledging the complexities of modern interconnected communities.


The Far Right

Far-right political ideologies are rooted in 20th-century fascism and nationalism and have diverse perspectives on human rights. Traditional far-right support for human rights often extends to individual and specific family rights but conflicts with LGBTQ+ rights and women's right to abortion. Cultural assimilation, rather than cultural relativism, is emphasized, which implies minority conformity to the majority. The far right has evolved over time in response to economic and societal changes. After being marginalized after World War II, it saw a resurgence in the late 20th century, often incorporating anti-globalization and anti-immigration sentiments.

The Far Right

The Far Right

The following text is based on an interview

What Is The Far Right?

The far-right political ideology originates from fascism and the nationalist ideologies at the beginning of the 20th century in Europe.

The birth of human rights as we know them today came as a direct response to the horrors of the Second World War, much of which was perpetrated in the name of the far-right ideology of fascism.

In contrast to liberals who advocate for a limited state intervention, the far right present themselves as nationalist, and so the state is central to all aspects of life.

The Far Right and Human Rights

As there are different kinds of far-right parties, there is a range of opinions from the far right about human rights. For example, since its creation in 2001, the far-right nationalist party in Poland — Prawo i Sprawiedliwość or Law and Justice — strongly rejects some human rights, such as some women's rights, LGTBQ+ rights, and so on. 

Differently, the current far-right movement in Italy uses the discourse on human rights in a different way. In relation to immigration, instead of campaigning to address the human rights of immigrants arriving by sea, they advocate for protecting the rights of the immigrants through fighting the people who traffic them, precluding a real action in favor of immigrants’ human rights in the country.

Thus, the discourse of human rights has been used (and abused) to place the blame on the traffickers rather than processing the immigrants as they arrive as required by European and Human Rights law. 

There are certain human rights that the far right traditionally supports, for example, individual rights and rights related to specific ideas of the family. Conversely, there are rights that they traditionally support less, such as LGTBQ+ rights. There has also always been a conflict between the far right and women’s right to abortion. Certainly, within the far-right perspective, resistance to certain human rights is often framed as a defense of established values, expressing concerns about the perceived erosion of tradition, conflicts between rights, the preservation of cultural identity, and fears of broader social changes. Rather than outright rejection, this stance is rooted in a perceived need to protect existing norms and values amidst societal shifts.

The far-right ideology doesn't respect cultural relativism because these movements are very nationalistic. For them, it is the responsibility of the minority to change in order to become more like the majority. This process is commonly known as cultural assimilation.

The Far Right Over Time

The far right has undergone notable transformations over time, adapting to changing political landscapes and societal dynamics. Historically, movements associated with the far right have emerged in response to economic uncertainties, cultural shifts, and perceived threats to traditional values. From early nationalist movements in the 19th century to the rise of populist and anti-immigrant sentiments in recent decades, the far right has demonstrated resilience and flexibility in its ideologies.

In the aftermath of World War II, the far right faced a period of marginalization due to the stigma associated with fascist ideologies. However, it experienced a resurgence in the latter part of the 20th century, marked by the emergence of populist leaders, anti-globalization sentiments, and a focus on immigration issues. The far right has capitalized on economic anxieties and identity politics, often presenting itself as a voice against perceived elite establishments. 

The 21st century has witnessed the far right leveraging digital platforms to disseminate its ideologies and connect with like-minded individuals globally. Movements characterized by nationalism, anti-globalism, and anti-immigrant sentiments have gained traction in various parts of the world. These movements often incorporate fears of cultural change and economic instability, contributing to their appeal among certain demographics. This appeal is linked to a need for the protection of national cultural identity and the fear of cultural/ethnic changes and economic threats in the context of profound economic/political and social crises.

It's essential to note the diversity within the far-right spectrum. It ranges from populist movements with electoral success to more extremist and fringe groups. The far right's ideologies can vary, encompassing nationalism, nativism (prioritizing ‘native-born’ residents), authoritarianism, and anti-globalization sentiments. The movement's adaptability and ability to respond to social and economic anxieties underscore its continued relevance in contemporary political landscapes.


Next Chapter
Previous Chapter

Learn more

Videos & Documentaries

Stats, Databases & Infographics

Articles, Reports & Books

Lectures & Debates

Authors & Partners

To move forward,
we need your help!

Atlas is a nonprofit initiative that is currently being developed almost entirely by volunteers. By joining our membership community, you will enable us to create new topics, develop the interactive map, build partnerships, and deliver this resource to more people around the world.