A Cambridge University study shows how political elites in border regions have amplified anti-immigrant sentiment by using the rhetoric of “overcrowding”.
People’s vote is manipulated PHOTO Inquam Photos
The most common explanations for this success are related to the economic, cultural and security concerns of citizens caused by mass migration, according to cambridge.org. A recent study by Cambridge University researchers examines this connection, offering a different perspective: the success of these parties cannot be explained only by objective changes, but also by a deliberate manipulation of public perceptions.
Using a difference-in-differences (DID) design, the researchers compared Swiss municipalities located near border crossings with those further away. The study showed that after the open border agreement between Switzerland and the European Union in 2000, the number of migrant workers in border regions increased by 14% and support for anti-immigrant parties increased by 32%. These data suggest that immigration did not have direct economic effects on border regions, but was used by political parties to boost electoral support.
Political rhetoric and the radicalization of the electorate
One of the most interesting findings of the study is the link between elite political rhetoric and anti-immigrant attitudes. The researchers found that politicians in Switzerland’s border regions were the first to promote narratives of “overcrowding” and “density stress” caused by migration. These narratives, initially promoted by Ticino politicians, quickly spread and were taken up by other right-wing parties in Europe, including pro-Brexit politicians and Donald Trump in the United States.
This kind of rhetoric, which suggests that “the country is full” and that immigration is an existential threat, has been identified as a key factor in increasing support for extremist parties. The study shows that political elites in the regions with the greatest exposure to immigration intensified this discourse, creating an atmosphere of panic and moral panic that fueled anti-immigrant sentiment.
Commentary by Sorin Ioniță: Manipulating public perceptions
In this context, political analyst Sorin Ioniță comments on Facebook an essential aspect of the study. He points out that the success of far-right parties is not necessarily a spontaneous reaction to economic realities or social changes, as is commonly believed. Rather, the phenomenon is the result of a sustained political campaign, orchestrated by political elites, who choose to inflame certain realities and present them as urgent and intractable problems.
Ioniță argues that extremist parties not only listen better to the electorate and its concerns, but rather shape them through constant and manipulative rhetoric. After years of propaganda, these parties succeed in convincing the public of the seriousness of certain issues, thus shaping the attitudes and behaviors of the electorate. His comment echoes the idea expressed in an article in Foreign Policy, which suggests that it is not voters who determine a country’s political direction, but political elites, who make strategic decisions to give voters only certain options.
In his opinion, this process of shaping the electorate also took place in the past, when far-left movements and various radical groups used the same manipulation technique. Today, however, the phenomenon has moved to the right side of the political spectrum, and the centrist parties, through their complicity with this discourse, aggravate the problem.
The role of local politicians in propagating anti-immigrant rhetoric
The study also shows that politicians in border regions, such as Switzerland’s canton of Ticino, were more likely to propose anti-immigrant legislation. This suggests that although these regions have been exposed to increased immigration, local politicians have not only responded to voters’ concerns, but have been active in intensifying anti-immigrant rhetoric, thus creating a vicious circle in which voters’ concerns are amplified by local politicians.
These findings underscore the idea that political elites not only react to public fears, but often play an active role in cultivating these fears and promoting a polarized discourse that can lead to a radicalization of the electorate. Politicians from border regions were also more likely to defend extremist positions and deepen social and political divisions.
Study limitations and possible future research directions
The study has several important limitations. Although researchers have tested hypotheses related to economic, cultural and security factors, they have not been able to identify all possible causes of anti-immigrant sentiment. Another possible explanation could be a sense of economic deprivation among native citizens, but research has not borne this out. Moreover, major urban areas such as Basel and Geneva cannot be considered as examples of places affected by economic stagnation.
Another limitation is related to the difficulty of separating the effects of national political rhetoric from local ones. Although the study suggests that local and national rhetoric influence each other, it is difficult to isolate exactly how each contributes to anti-immigrant attitudes.
