Back to Globe
Europe’s Far-Right Backslide Threatens Rights
Human Rights & Justice

Europe’s Far-Right Backslide Threatens Rights

Severity
8/10
Impact
93.0Mpeople
Trend
worsening
Region
Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Spain
Far-right parties have expanded their influence across Europe, and by the 2024 European elections support had increased in 22 of 27 EU countries, with far-right parties holding just over a quarter of European Parliament seats when independent MEPs are excluded. The trend is increasingly shaping EU decision-making because far-right representatives now participate in major EU decisions through governments, the European Council, and the Council of the EU. Recent analysis also shows the political base for these parties has widened further: a June 2026 report found that nearly 25% of European voters now back far-right parties, up from around 10% a decade earlier and around 5% in 1995, with far-right parties taking part in governing coalitions in Croatia, Czechia, Italy, and Finland and supporting Sweden’s right-wing minority government. This normalization is tied to stronger anti-migrant and anti-democratic narratives, which researchers and watchdogs warn are undermining democratic safeguards and shifting policy debates toward harsher treatment of migrants, asylum seekers, and other targeted groups.

Recent Developments

012024 European elections: support for far-right parties increased in 22 of 27 EU countries, and far-right parties held just over a quarter of European Parliament seats excluding independent MEPs.

02June 2025: reporting indicated far-right parties were surging across Europe, with similar movements gaining traction in multiple EU states.

03June 2026: a cross-national analysis found nearly 25% of European voters now support far-right parties, up from around 10% a decade earlier and around 5% in 1995.

04June 2026: far-right parties were reported to be in governing coalitions in Croatia, Czechia, Italy, and Finland, and supporting Sweden’s right-wing minority government.

Interventions

  • EU rule-of-law and democratic oversight mechanisms remain active through EU institutions, including legislative and institutional scrutiny of member-state governance.
  • Civil society and human-rights monitoring by organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch continues to document rights erosion and pressure governments and EU institutions to respond.

What Works

  • Strong rule-of-law safeguards and institutional checks are the main available defense against democratic backsliding, because far-right influence grows when alternative majorities and weak oversight allow anti-rights policies to advance.
  • Independent human-rights monitoring and public reporting help expose discriminatory policy shifts affecting migrants, asylum seekers, minorities, and civil society, increasing pressure for corrective action.

How to Help

  • Support credible human-rights organizations monitoring rule-of-law and discrimination risks in Europe.
  • Back local civil-society groups defending migrants, asylum seekers, Roma communities, LGBTI people, Muslims, and people of African descent.
  • Advocate for strong rule-of-law protections, judicial independence, and anti-discrimination safeguards through elected representatives and public consultation.

Make an Impact

Direct donations to verified organizations working on this crisis. Your contribution makes a difference.

Coming soon: one-click donations distributed across all organizations via our impact protocol.

Raise Awareness

Can't donate? You can still make a huge impact. Join others in amplifying this cause globally by sharing it with your network.

Verified Organizations

Organizations Helping(4)

ENAR tackles the far-right backlash by documenting how far-right parties and discourse normalize racism and anti-immigrant hostility, then using that evidence to support advocacy, coalition-building, and public accountability. Its work includes publishing research on far-right narratives, exposing how those narratives are translated into discriminatory local and national policies, and pushing EU and national institutions to resist the mainstreaming of exclusionary politics.

ECNL addresses far-right pressure on rights and democracy by working on the legal protections that keep civil society active and independent. It researches restrictive laws, advises on legislation, and supports advocacy to protect association, assembly, and participation rights, which are often targeted when anti-rights movements seek to shrink civic space.

Liberties tackles democratic backsliding by producing rule-of-law reporting, coordinating watchdog advocacy, and supporting member organizations that challenge attacks on judicial independence, media freedom, and civic space. It focuses on exposing how illiberal governments and far-right-aligned policies weaken checks and balances, then uses that evidence in EU-level advocacy and public campaigns.

Amnesty International’s strategy is built around independent human-rights research, public campaigning, and targeted pressure on governments and institutions. Its “What We Do” and “About Us” materials describe an organization that investigates abuses, publishes findings, and uses advocacy to push states to change laws, policies, and practices.[1][3] A distinctive feature of Amnesty’s method is that it combines expert documentation with mass public mobilization. Rather than delivering services directly, it focuses on naming abuses, amplifying the voices of affected people, and creating enough public and diplomatic pressure to force reform; its materials also emphasize that it works on a global scale through national sections and campaigns.[1][3][7] Amnesty’s issue portfolio shows a rights-based, cross-cutting model rather than a single-sector aid model. The organization concentrates on areas where state power is central to harm and remedy—such as torture, capital punishment, refugee protection, discrimination, and political imprisonment—so its intervention strategy is primarily investigative and political rather than humanitarian service delivery.[1][2][7]

Sources & Citations

Related Crises