Search results

The Nordic states had an active radical right presence long before the economic and refugee crises that swept the shores of the European Union (EU) left in their wake a reinvigorated right-wing contingent. The radical right parties (RRPs) have not only registered various degrees of electoral success, but have also made inroads into the political mainstream. The three defining characteristics that set these parties apart from the more traditional far-right ones are: 1) the repudiation of hardcore extremism; 2) the search for political viability; and 3) the acquisition of mainstream recognition. The present article argues that as these parties compete for legitimacy, they are forced to alter their discriminatory rhetoric by switching tonal registers. One of the political strategies that enables them to put the outright "overt" in the "covert" is the recourse to dog whistle politics. How well can they overcome the stigma associated with their more extreme reflexes depends on a case by case basis. This article examines whether the four most prominent examples of Nordic radicalism (the Danish People's Party, Finns Party, Sweden Democrats, and Norway's Progress Party) have integrated dog whistles in their political messaging and tracks how these coded appeals change from one country to another. In analyzing the response to the 2015 refugee crisis, the study finds that to a certain extent, the rhetoric utilized falls into the coded register or at the very least purposefully attempts to veer away from the radical excesses which are marginalizing and self-exclusionary.

Security has generally posed a challenge to those who have attempted to reach an ideal, comprehensive and encompassing definition of the concept. Orthodox perspectives have mainly focused on the state as a "harbinger" of security that defends its territory and citizens against external enemies through the acquisition of military grade weapons. Neorealist theorist, Stephen Walt defines security as "the study of threat, use, and control of military force" (1991, 212). Since security is a seemingly self-explanatory concept, it has also been rather underdeveloped to the point that International Relations theorist Barry Buzan argues that before the '80s, "conceptual literature on security" was rather neglected if not, a sorely absent field of inquiry (1983, 3-4). Buzan himself, along with Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde, proposed a new research agenda for security as evidenced in the book: "Security: A New Framework for Analysis" (1997). These authors are regarded as the main representatives of what today we refer to as the Copenhagen School of Security Studies. The present article provides an analysis of the Copenhagen School's "good practices" on security and securitization as speech acts (Mutimer 2016, 93) and intersubjective processes (de Graaf 2011, 11), in order to address the performative power behind the contemporaneous security architecture and the security practices of threat construction.