In previous years, a policy of isolating ELAM was applied by all parties within the democratic spectrum. Journalists also paid little attention. For most, ELAM was “the elephant in the room”. If not that, it was certainly a target of harsh criticism. What was the result of this stance? ELAM started with 1% and today is challenging for third place in the party system.
If the aim of some is genuinely to weaken the far right, they cannot ignore the actual results of the policy of exclusion. Neither the fear of normalising the far right, nor the stance of moral superiority by democratically minded individuals, has achieved the goal of weakening ELAM. It appears that the phenomenon cannot be addressed with slogans and a principled posture alone.
A person or a political force cannot proclaim that cooperation with the far right is excluded and be applauded by democratically sensitive citizens, while at the same time the far right’s support grows. The issue is not to keep one’s conscience clear. What matters is preventing the radicalisation of society and the growth of far‑right elements.
Young people in schools tend towards the far right because they perceive it as a form of rebellion. Young people are inherently radical. They observe that society excludes ELAM and begin to feel they belong in that ideological space. The idea of being part of the margins attracts many teenagers and citizens. The image of being anti‑system is appealing. It is no coincidence that some new parties cultivate this image successfully.
The appeal of being anti‑system diminishes when a party that was previously excluded becomes part of the system, acquiring an institutional role and positions of power. It is then forced to bear the cost of political decisions and its radical character begins to fade. It loses its oppositional momentum. This also happens to democratic parties, which express absolute positions while in opposition, but once in power develop a sense of realism and are forced to justify decisions taken by centres of authority.
ELAM has already begun to avoid criticism on certain issues, as part of its effort to gain an institutional role and a larger share of power. It is becoming more cautious, seeking to convince citizens it can manage public affairs. This ambition will have consequences for the party’s ideological character. It will not suddenly become a liberal right‑wing party, but it will at some point be forced to adapt to reality, unless it chooses to remain a populist party that says one thing and does another, which would lead to loss of credibility.
However, the focus here is not the challenges ELAM faces in its effort to become a party of power, but the zero result of the policy of excluding the far right. On this issue, DIKO is correct. Realism must now prevail. This does not mean that democratic parties should adopt far‑right positions. However, they must deal politically with a situation that cannot continue to be ignored if society is to avoid drifting towards the far right.
