Right-wing Parties Sway Political Winds

Right-wing parties have mounted a severe challenge to the social democratic parties, namely the Labour Party in the UK, the Social Democrats in Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Norway in recent times. The dominant social democratic parties are in deep trouble for the first time in contemporary history, which is testified by their plummeting tally in the electoral vote count. The growing support for the right-wing parties in these countries demonstrates the marked sway of a new rightist political wave resulting from the allegedly poor delivery and weak performance of the so-called democratic governments. As a result, not only in Europe but in many democratic countries in the world, including Latin America, politics has taken a rightward tilt. 

In an article titled "why progressive governments are failing and how to win back voters" published recently in the Social Europe - a publication focused on social and democratic political issues in the continent, Mariana Mazzucato, a professor in the economics of innovation and public value at the University College London, makes an interesting analysis of the right ward turn of politics in Europe. According to Mariana, as European leaders confront right-wing populist headwinds, the challenge is not only to govern competently, but also to do so in ways that make reform visible, fast, and politically meaningful to persuade and win back voters. In fact, voters in many democratic countries have begun to doubt the rationale and efficacy of the existing public policy to improve their lives. 

Right-wing populism 

As a result, right-wing populism is gaining ground, fed by the idea that progressive democratic politics amounts to technocratic rhetoric with no results. Democratic governments of all political hues and stripes are almost universally failing to recognise this new terrain of political legitimacy. Too many policy programmes are built on assumptions from a bygone era based on the gradual institutionalisation of the system and the trickling down of the benefits to the people. The choice for social democrats is whether to focus on building more housing and other “stuff,” or to re-imagine the political and institutional machinery that provides for such goods. The first option may bring some wins in the short term, but only the second one can deliver a lasting transformation that voters will not soon forget, argues Mariana.  

Besides, too many governments lack the capacity to deliver even short-term wins. Reform plans tend to be overly bureaucratic, and old technocratic habits have dulled the current generation’s political instincts. While plans often read well in manifestos, they fail to shift public perceptions or deliver outcomes that ordinary voters will feel and appreciate, writes Mariana. To develop the organisational muscles to deliver meaningful results fast, democratic governments must invest in creative, agile bureaucracies that know how to get things done. The situation demands not only more ambition but also a sharper sense of how reforms will be received in a political ecosystem defined by short attention spans and deep institutional distrust. Policies, as Mariana advises, need to be thought through both strategically for long term and tactically for short term.

That means focusing on local settings, where legitimacy is rooted. For this, cities where the dominant number of voters are not only ideal testing grounds, they also are where many elections are fought and won, where social and economic divides are most visible, and where inclusive, experimental governance can make a direct, tangible difference. Rather than pursuing national reforms that will take a decade or more to implement, democratic leaders should craft local policies to deliver results – from jobs and affordable housing to preventive health care – within a single mayoral term. Governments can learn from digital and design teams. Mariana appreciates the UK’s Government Digital Service and New York City’s Civic Service Design Studio which have shown how cross-disciplinary teams working outside traditional bureaucratic silos can create new channels for citizen engagement, streamline public services, and change the bureaucracy from within. 

These efforts are effective not only practically, but also politically, offering proof that governments can learn, adapt, and deliver. The climate agenda underscores the need for public-sector agility. Although climate-risk messaging is strong and based firmly in science, it has failed to jump-start the necessary reforms at scale. Clearly, the green transition must be treated not only as an environmental issue but also as the only path for achieving durable economic and territorial security. But individual policy programmes are tactical. Democratic governments also need new foundations for how to think about the economy, statecraft, and value creation over time. That means moving beyond the narrow metrics of cost-benefit analysis or GDP growth. 

Broad intellectual shift 

These metrics reflect a linear logic that no longer applies. The policy tools must reflect the nonlinear, adaptive, and deeply interconnected character of the problems we face, whether they be climate collapse, rising inequality, or technological disruption, contends Mariana in her intellectual write-up. Public finance, for example, should be seen not as a constraint but as a tool for shaping innovation and investment. Such a broad intellectual shift must be institutionalised across the public sector, including through expert communities that can inform policy from within the government to ensure delivery. Governments will need to build this capacity as a core function of statecraft, not as an add-on. 

The populist far right has not only moved fast; it has built a powerful, well-organised movement that has achieved outsize influence, especially through control of the media narrative. To confront this, democratic-minded governments need to distinguish between the populists’ illusion of speed - all the “efficiency” propaganda and the reality of what it takes to govern and build lasting capacity. The right often champions static efficiency – doing the same things faster or cheaper. But what we need is dynamic efficiency, the ability to adapt, learn, and transform systems to meet complex, evolving challenges. Reform can no longer be treated as a technical process. 

(The author is presently associated with Policy Research Institute (PRI) as a senior research fellow.  rijalmukti@gmail.com)