Global rise of nationalist right - and women reshaping Europe’s radical right - OPINION
By Aytan Aliyeva
The rise of right-wing nationalist and populist movements has become one of the defining political developments of the twenty-first century. From Europe and the United States to Latin America and parts of Asia, political movements emphasizing national sovereignty, immigration control, cultural identity and opposition to established political elites have gained electoral support. There is no single explanation for this development. Nor are all of these parties ideologically identical. Political scientists distinguish among conservative, national-conservative, populist radical-right and far-right movements. Nevertheless, comparative research identifies a recurring combination of economic insecurity, cultural change, immigration, globalization, declining confidence in established institutions and dissatisfaction with mainstream political parties.
An especially striking feature of the European case is the emergence of prominent women leaders within political movements historically associated with male leadership and traditional gender roles. Figures such as Giorgia Meloni in Italy, Marine Le Pen in France and Alice Weidel in Germany complicate the assumption that nationalist-right politics necessarily has a masculine public face.
Why is the nationalist right growing?
Economic insecurity and globalization have played an important role in the growing support for right-wing and nationalist parties. Over the last few decades, globalization, technological change and the movement of industries to other countries have transformed many European economies. Although these developments have created new opportunities, they have also left some people feeling economically insecure or neglected. The disappearance of traditional industries, concerns about employment, rising living costs and pressure on housing have contributed to a feeling among some voters that governments are no longer protecting their interests. Nationalist parties respond to these concerns by promising to give greater priority to domestic industries, national economic interests and citizens. Their message often suggests that the country has lost control over important economic and political decisions and that this control needs to be restored.
Immigration and rapid cultural change have also contributed to the growth of nationalist politics, particularly in Europe. Large migration and refugee movements have created intense debates about border control, integration, Islam, demographic change and national identity. For some voters, immigration is mainly connected to economic concerns such as competition for jobs, housing and public services. For others, the concern is more cultural and relates to whether newcomers will integrate into the existing society, respect its values or change the country's traditional identity. Questions of crime and security have also become closely connected to immigration in political debate. Right-wing nationalist parties have been particularly successful at bringing these different concerns together. Instead of treating immigration as a single policy issue, they often connect it with a broader argument about protecting the country's borders, culture and way of life.
At the same time, dissatisfaction with established political parties has created opportunities for nationalist and populist movements. Many voters feel that traditional political parties have become distant from ordinary people and that political elites do not understand their everyday concerns. Populist politicians build on this frustration by presenting politics as a struggle between ordinary citizens and an established political elite. Governments, traditional parties, bureaucracies, international institutions and sometimes the media are portrayed as parts of a system that no longer properly represents the population. This message can become especially attractive when mainstream centre-left and centre-right parties appear to offer similar solutions to major political problems. Nationalist and populist parties can then present themselves as an alternative to the entire political establishment rather than simply another political party.
Questions of national sovereignty have become particularly important in Europe. European integration has transferred significant decision-making to institutions at the European level, while globalization has also reduced the ability of individual governments to act entirely independently. Nationalist parties argue that important decisions about borders, migration, economic regulation and national identity should remain primarily under national control. However, this does not always mean that these parties want their countries to leave the European Union. Many now focus instead on changing the EU from within by giving greater power to national governments and limiting the influence of European institutions. As a result, the debate is increasingly not simply about being for or against Europe. It is about what kind of Europe should exist and how much political power individual nations should retain.
These developments help explain why nationalist and right-wing parties have gained support in many European countries. Nationalist movements have been able to combine them into a simple political message: governments should regain control, protect national interests and give greater priority to their own citizens.
Why are women becoming leaders of Europe’s nationalist right?
The visibility of women such as Giorgia Meloni, Marine Le Pen and Alice Weidel initially appears paradoxical. Historically, radical-right parties were often perceived as highly masculine political organizations. Their rhetoric emphasized authority, security, military strength, borders and traditional family structures. Yet female leadership can provide these movements with strategic advantages precisely because it disrupts that older image. Recently, Meloni and Le Pen as examples of political “strongwomen” leaders who combine feminine characteristics such as motherhood, care and protection with characteristics traditionally associated with the strongman, toughness, authority and confrontation. The result is not simply “women replacing men.” It is a different political performance of nationalism.
- The Strategy of “De-Demonization”
Marine Le Pen provides perhaps the clearest European example. When she inherited leadership of France’s National Front from her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, the party carried decades of political baggage. Marine Le Pen pursued what became known in France as dédiabolisation, commonly translated as “de-demonization.” The objective was to make the party appear more electorally acceptable without necessarily abandoning its central positions on immigration, national identity and sovereignty.Female leadership can contribute to such normalization. A woman presenting nationalist policies through the language of security, family and protection can create a different political image from the stereotypical aggressive male extremist. Research into media representations of female radical-right leaders has examined precisely this possibility, including portrayals of female leaders as apparently “gentler” versions of radical politics.
The political strategy can therefore be understood as: Radical policy continuity + moderated presentation = broader electoral acceptability. Gender does not automatically produce moderation. Rather, the public image of a female leader can be incorporated into a broader strategy of normalization.
- “Pinkwashing”: Liberal Language in Nationalist Politics
The term should be used cautiously because it is evaluative and is applied differently across political contexts. Broadly, it refers to presenting support for women’s or LGBTQ+ rights as evidence of liberal or progressive values while using those issues to legitimize another political objective. Within some European nationalist rhetoric, the argument can take the following form: European society protects women and sexual minorities. Certain immigrant cultures do not. Therefore restricting immigration protects liberal European values. This produces an unusual ideological combination. Historically, much of the nationalist right was socially conservative and often hostile to feminism and LGBTQ+ rights. Some contemporary nationalist politicians instead selectively invoke those rights when discussing immigration, Islam and European identity. Nationalist politics can present itself not only as the defender of tradition but, selectively, as the defender of European liberalism against allegedly illiberal outsiders. That development leads directly to the concept of femonationalism.
- “Femonationalism”: Women's Rights and Nationalist Politics
The term femonationalism was developed by sociologist Sara R. Farris in her 2017 book In the Name of Women’s Rights: The Rise of Femonationalism. Farris uses the concept to analyse the convergence of nationalist politics and claims about women’s emancipation, particularly in political discussions involving Islam and immigration. A recent cross-national political-science formulation defines femonationalism more specifically as the strategic invocation of women's rights or women's safety to legitimize nativist anti-immigration policies. The rhetorical structure is relatively simple.
- First, gender equality is presented as an essential European value.
- Second, migrant communities, particularly Muslim communities may be represented as culturally patriarchal.
- Third, immigration is consequently framed as a potential threat not merely to borders but to women's freedom and security.
The political argument shifts from: “We must stop immigration because immigrants are different.” to: “We must control immigration because we must protect women and liberal values.”
That distinction matters. The second formulation allows an immigration policy to be presented using the vocabulary of emancipation and equality. Farris argues that this can involve portraying Muslim men as threats to Western women while depicting Muslim women as people who require rescue from their own supposedly patriarchal culture. However, scholars also caution against assuming that every invocation of women's safety in migration debates is automatically femonationalist. The concept refers specifically to the strategic connection between gender-equality rhetoric and nativist exclusion.
- Why Female Leaders Are Particularly Effective in this Political Framework
Female nationalist leaders can embody the argument in a way male politicians cannot. A male politician saying: “We must protect women.” speaks about women.
A female politician can present herself simultaneously as: a woman, a protector of women and a protector of the nation. Her identity can therefore reinforce the political message.
It can also help counter accusations that nationalist parties are inherently hostile to women's political advancement. The presence of a woman at the top of the party becomes symbolically important even where the party maintains socially conservative positions on family or gender. Yet female nationalist leaders do not all perform femininity in the same way.
- Mother versus Professional
The distinction can therefore be summarized as two different ways of legitimizing female nationalist leadership. The Mother derives political authority from identity and protection. She communicates: I understand families because I am part of one; I will protect the nation as families protect their own. The Professional derives authority from competence and control. She communicates: I am educated, disciplined and capable of governing effectively. Marine Le Pen occupies an interesting position between these models. Scholarship has described her political persona as capable of combining the image of a national mother and protector with the tougher role of someone prepared to punish perceived enemies of the nation.
- From the “Strongman” to the “Strongwoman”
For much of modern nationalist politics, leadership was associated with the strongman: an assertive male figure promising order, authority and national restoration. The emergence of Meloni, Le Pen and other female nationalist politicians suggests an important modification of this model. The strongwoman can retain the central attributes of strongman politics: authority, toughness, sovereignty, borders and national protection while adding traditionally feminine political signals: motherhood, care, empathy, family and women's security. Recent research on Meloni and Le Pen argues that this combination represents a distinctive political form rather than simply women imitating male populist leaders.
The rise of female nationalist leaders shows how right-wing movements are adapting their image by combining traditional ideas of nation and identity with modern female leadership to appeal to a broader range of voters.
