The resurgence of neo-fascist movements poses one of the most urgent political challenges in contemporary Europe.

This growth is not simply the result of these movements’ intrinsic appeal but rather the product of deeper structural issues compounded by the erosion of democratic credibility, the fragmentation of public discourse, and a widespread sense of disillusionment and distrust among citizens.

In a political landscape where democratic parties often engage in mutual blame rather than constructive dialogue, extremist voices can easily position themselves as the bold, coherent, and “uncompromising” alternatives. This brings us to a fundamental question: What can democratic Europe do in response?

The “Blame Game” and the fertile ground for neo-fascism

Across the EU, as far-right forces gain ground, we observe a disconcerting trend: mainstream democratic parties, whether centre-left or centre-right, increasingly engage in mutual recrimination. This “blame game” does more than dilute the democratic response; it undermines public confidence in political unity and shared purpose. The result is a climate of cynicism and chaos.

Rather than presenting themselves as trustworthy stewards of the public good, these democratic actors often appear preoccupied with infighting. This opens space for neo-fascist movements to step in with emotionally charged, oversimplified narratives that exploit frustration while offering, actually, no viable solutions. These forces do not rise in a vacuum. They feed off the gaps left by fragmented democracies.

The ensuing crisis of representation is double-edged. On one hand, broad coalitions can seem artificial or opportunistic, making the radical right look like the real alternative and opposition. On the other hand, their absence may be read as political paralysis. It is a delicate trap in which any democratic action is at risk of being reinterpreted as weakness while extremism postures as strength.

What is the solution? An integrated democratic strategy

There is no silver bullet. The defense of democracy in Europe must be multi-layered, long-term, and grounded in both principle and pragmatism. Four key pillars stand out:

-Restoring public trust through tangible policy outcomes: democracy cannot be defended solely on ethical or historical grounds. It must deliver. For the EU’s democratic institutions to regain public confidence, they must respond effectively to real-life issues: housing, employment, healthcare, climate resilience, and digital security. The populist far right thrives where people feel unheard and underserved. Only credible, evidence-based, and people-centred public policy can counteract the erosion of democratic legitimacy.

  • Combating disinformation with empathy and emotional intelligence: a key weakness in the democratic response is often not the message, but the tone. While far-right rhetoric is emotionally manipulative and factually dubious, responses from democratic actors often lean into a dry technocratic style, saturated with data, charts, and abstract principles. Ironically, these rational tools are frequently delivered with emotional intensity. This rhetorical symmetry creates a vicious circle: both camps speak loudly, but neither listens. Polarization intensifies, and the space for meaningful dialogue disappears.

    Facts and figures alone are rarely persuasive to those already alienated or suspicious of institutions. Sarcasm, public shaming, or academic condescension may satisfy the speaker but rarely shift the converted listener. What proves more effective is emotional intelligence: the ability to meet people where they are, with empathy, humility, and patience. Not to win arguments, but to create openings for reflection.

  • Reframing democratic alliances as projects for something: In many EU countries, democratic coalitions have been formed largely as defensive maneuvers against extremist threats. But reactive alliances are not enough. To be politically meaningful, each of these parties must articulate a positive and forward-looking vision for justice, for social cohesion, and for intergenerational stability. Only then can they inspire trust, especially from younger voters or those who are politically disengaged.

  • Embedding critical thinking in education and civic culture: The defense of democracy begins long before the ballot box. It starts in classrooms, online platforms, newsrooms, and around kitchen tables. A resilient democracy depends on generations equipped with critical thinking skills, media literacy, and historical memory, particularly regarding Europe’s past with fascism. Without this civic foundation, democracies become vulnerable to manipulation, fallacious simplification, and political amnesia.

The emotional toll of engaging with extremism

Perhaps the most difficult challenge is psychological. For many citizens committed to human rights and democratic values, the prospect of engaging with supporters of far-right or neo-fascist parties is deeply distressing, especially because these parties promote openly racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic agendas.

To engage in dialogue under such conditions often feels like being forced to debate the very idea of human dignity, to argue against what should be indefensible. It is emotionally exhausting, sometimes traumatizing. This leads many to withdraw from public conversation altogether.

Yet silence can be costly. When progressive or centrist voices retreat, the space is quickly filled by those promoting division, hatred, and authoritarianism. And so, the democratic challenge becomes more urgent: How can we speak to those whose views we find unacceptable without compromising our own values or burning out in the process?

Strategic and emotionally sustainable dialogue

Dialogue, when used wisely, remains one of democracy’s most powerful tools. It is hard to persuade the ideologically hardened, but to reach the mistaken, the undecided, the uncertain—those who are listening from the margins. Many far-right voters in Europe did not begin their journey in hatred; they were drawn by fear, insecurity, or simply by alienation. To them, empathetic dialogue can offer an off-ramp from radicalization.

Here are some guiding principles for emotionally sustainable engagement:

  • Choose the right moments and know when to walk away.

  • Focus on indirect listeners, not just the immediate provocateur.

  • Ask open-ended questions instead of issuing accusations.

  • Use stories, not statistics: personal narratives resonate more deeply.

  • Aim to plant seeds, not score points. The goal is reflection, not victory.

Resistance as patience

To remain calm, principled, and empathetic in the face of hatred is not to capitulate but to resist with purpose. Neo-fascism dehumanizes, simplifies, and shouts. Democracy needs to listen, respond, and rebuild. This rebuilding takes time, but it endures. It does not seek applause in the moment; it sows the ground for long-term resilience.

The fight against authoritarianism in Europe today is not just a defensive struggle; it is a creative one. We must show, through language, leadership, and lived policy, that democracy is not just the lesser evil, but the system most capable of delivering dignity, equity, and freedom for all.