By Francesco Paolo Sgarlata |

Many analysts are wondering why right-wing movements are on the rise across the European Union.

The answers they often provide are varied, but surprisingly, almost none seem to capture what is perhaps the simplest and most logical explanation. This isn’t due to a lack of professionalism, but rather because a preconception, inherent in many of them, prevents them from objectively seeing what is clear to many others.

The simple truth is that right-wing parties have likely managed to address some of the most deeply felt issues in various countries, such as the need for personal and job security, but also the need for identity. These are issues that have often been underestimated or even ignored by certain political and cultural elites, who have been more focused on idealistic topics.

Imposed ideologies inevitably take a back seat when it comes to primary needs. As Maslow’s famous hierarchy of needs shows, right after basic necessities like breathing, eating, and sleeping, come those of security—physical, job-related, moral, familial, health-related, and property-related.

The next step is social needs, which involve belonging—to a couple, a family, a group of friends, or a circle of professionals or enthusiasts, and finally, to a society.

Belonging to a territory and recognizing the values, traditions, and ways of life passed down to us, which we deem to be characteristic and shared by our peers—those we feel are like us—is both identifying and reassuring. Even more so, it is the foundational concept of feeling part of a people, whether regional, national, or European.

And this is perhaps where neither national nor European institutions have provided an adequate response.

On another front, green policies, while absolutely essential in addressing pollution and climate change, may have needed to be introduced in a less economically impactful way for the population. For example, the extremely costly adaptation of homes to the new European directives should perhaps have been applied only to new constructions. This certainly favored the right in the choices of many voters.

The same goes for the major issue of immigration, possibly the mother of all issues. It is right to welcome those who show a willingness to integrate, but it is wrong to undermine our values, traditions, and customs in the name of ideological and indiscriminate hospitality, which in some cases may even threaten the sense of belonging and identity of those who have lived here for generations.

The fact that the right would win in France has been evident for some time, especially given recent events, such as the disturbing news from last November’s attack on the village festival in Crèpol, which even the most politically correct newspapers couldn’t ignore, though they often downplayed the news.

Whether Macron, a great European leader whom we have supported on many occasions, has responded adequately in this case is yet to be determined. What is certain, however, is that incidents like this generate a sense of insecurity, fear, and distrust that were unknown in our parents’ society and that today are the result of policies driven by ideology rather than common sense.

So the question arises: Should political elites educate or represent?

This is an ontological distinction of fundamental importance, an existential difference in approach. Education comes from above, representation comes from below.

Being elected means having a mandate to represent the concerns of your electorate, not to impose changes to their values and ways of life, or even to decide what is right to say and how to say it.

The rise of right-wing parties is a symptom of widespread discontent expressed through popular votes in several states. Ignoring it, or pretending nothing has happened, would be foolish.

These concerns come from an increasingly broad segment of the population, as seen in recent elections in France, Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands. These concerns must be acknowledged, because not doing so will only further fuel this discontent.

Clearly, something in certain national and European policies does not resonate with an important, broad, and growing segment of the electorate.

Labeling these concerns as coming from neo-fascists, neo-nazis, or Putin sympathizers is short-sighted and foolish. It is not as if large sections of the population in several States suddenly became nostalgic for old or new regimes. These concerns have nothing to do with the past but rather with specific needs of the present. If we want the path toward greater European integration, which we all hope for, to continue and strengthen, we cannot ignore these concerns. We must ask ourselves which steps, both at the national and European levels, were wrong, too aggressive, or too weak.

At all levels of decision-making, alliances, and political agreements, it will be crucial to approach the major issues ahead with a pragmatic, not ideological, spirit, without preconceptions.

This is what the construction of our common European home demands, or else it risks remaining tragically unfinished.