Between Principle and Pragmatism: How MEPs Navigate the Cordon Sanitaire

The cordon sanitaire has been studied as a central mechanism through which mainstream actors seek to contain the influence of far-right challengers (Downs 2001; van Spanje 2010; Akkerman & Rooduijn 2015; Heinze 2018). While early scholarship conceptualised the cordon primarily as a strategic response, recent work argues that, once established, it functions as a social meta-norm, upheld through expectations of compliance, informal sanctions, and identity-based boundary policing among mainstream actors (Axelsen 2024). Despite this growing theoretical sophistication, comparatively little is known about how political elites themselves understand and interpret the purpose, legitimacy, and evolving dynamics of the cordon sanitaire in the context of the growing electoral success of the far right and its consolidation in parliaments. Existing research shows that the European Parliament is a space of principled exclusion and pragmatic collaboration. Studies have documented how far-right groups face persistent challenges in obtaining committee positions, rapporteurships, or intergroup access (Brack 2018; Brack & Startin 2015; Ripoll Servent 2019), yet also how mainstream groups occasionally rely on them for votes or engage informally in parliamentary work ( Brack and Marié 2024; McDonnell & Werner 2019; Moffitt 2022). As the far-right was the main winner of the 2024 EP elections, the dynamics have shifted inside the EP and some mainstream parties are increasingly facing a temptation to cooperate or accommodate radical actors. Yet, we still lack systematic evidence on how MEPs perceive these practices, justify them, or question them, an important gap given that elite beliefs play a key role in stabilising, eroding, or transforming political norms. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with MEPs from the different political groups, this paper will examine how they articulate the normative, strategic, and identity-related considerations underpinning decisions to maintain, contest, or relax the cordon. Following Axelsen’s model of the cordon sanitaire as a socially enforced meta-norm, the study investigates three mechanisms: perceptions of costly adherence and its justification; beliefs about sanctioning within the parliamentary setting; and forms of validity contestation expressed by actors advocating engagement or cooperation with radical right groups. The paper will analyze how MEPs balance strategic interests, normative commitments, and identity-driven considerations in the EP. More specifically, it will examine whether and how the meaning of the cordon are contested, contingent, and uneven across groups and national delegations.