Our paper focuses on the consequences of the ‘demonisation’ of anti-immigration parties in the Netherlands. Demonisation is defined as portraying a political actor as the embodiment of nazism/fascism. In the Netherlands, a wide variety of actors, such as politicians, media, groups in civil society, and other social actors have demonized political opponents, and the practice of demonizing one’s opponent has increased between 1995 and 2011. Anti-immigration parties have been demonized most. Dutch anti-immigration party leaders repeatedly complained about this. But also in other Western European countries, such as Austria, France, Belgium and Denmark, anti-immigration parties expressed objections to their demonization (Golsan 2003; Happold 2000; Tributsch 1994). Depending on who is to judge, demonisation is considered an act of vigilance or a knee-jerk attack. Generally, supporters of the anti-immigration party consider demonisation the latter, while opponents consider it the former. Either way, demonisation is a way to de-legitimise a political opponent, similar to political isolation and legal repression.
Dutch political commentators have been speculating the effects of demonisation; some, for example, argue that demonisation increases anti-immigration party support, while others maintain the opposite. However, so far, none of the claims about the consequences of demonisation have been supported by academic research. This study is a first step towards filling that void. Data on demonisation is obtained through a content analysis of Dutch written media. Subsequently, effects are estimated by means of time series analyses (ARIMA). Results show that demonisation decreases anti-immigration party support when the party is not yet fully established. Once the party is entrenched in legislative bodies, the effect of demonisation becomes insignificant. Results also show that demonisation decreases political trust among the electorate in general.
