The Cordon Sanitaire Cannot Hold

Although it is by nature undemocratic, the concept of the cordon sanitaire—the deliberate exclusion of fringe political groups from governance—was more justifiable in the eyes of the public during the first decades of the Cold War, given what went down before. In the present day, however, it has become the greatest violation of democratic principles in Europe. Yet it is being practiced, even celebrated, to a much greater extent than ever before. 

But willfully disenfranchising tens of millions of voters can only last for so long, and the good news is that we’re nearly at the end of it—at least that was the conclusion of the panelists at MCC Brussels’ latest event, “Why the Cordon Sanitaire cannot hold.” 

The panel discussion on Wednesday took place between two conservative MEPs from the Patriots for Europe (PfE) group—Tom Vandendriessche from the Flemish Vlaams Belang (VB) and Elisabeth Dieringer from the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ)—as well as MCC’s head of policy, Jacob Reynolds. The large conference room was full, proving that the topic was more important than ever.

The selection of speakers was not by chance. Despite being the third-largest group in the EU Parliament, the Patriots are still under strict cordon sanitaire and were denied all their pre-allocated seats in every governing body—the legality of which is currently being deliberated by the EU Court of Justice. The FPÖ and the VB have also been subjected to the same isolation in their own countries for most of their existence and have only recently begun to break free from their chains—since they are now also their countries’ biggest parties.

Being such a descriptive medical term, the name alone is an Orwellian play on language, MCC Director Frank Füredi pointed out in his introduction. Cordon sanitaire implies that right-wingers are sick and their ideas are infectious viruses that need to be isolated. But subconsciously turning politics into a public health matter only makes the anti-democratic impulse behind it all the more obvious, Füredi said, and that’s why it’s bound to fail.

Drawing on his expertise in totalitarian philosophies, Reynolds pointed out that establishment parties cling to this practice—despite its obvious democratic flaws—because it is the only force preventing today’s liberal order from collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. To work, it must be fundamentally based on lies, he said:

They say it protects people from dangerous anti-democratic leaders. But the opposite is true: it protects dangerous anti-democratic leaders from the people.

Dieringer followed by saying that the core principle of democracy is dialogue. What makes it different from tyranny is the willingness to listen, understand, and compromise with others, the former historian pointed out. Keeping ideas out of the discussion instead of engaging with them defeats the very purpose of democracy, which in turn increases tensions and turns people against one another.

But the good news is that it cannot last forever. In Austria, people no longer believe the establishment’s carefully constructed narratives about the “far-right monsters” in the FPÖ—especially not when the mainstream parties can offer no viable solutions to the problems they created. The FPÖ won last year’s federal election, and even though the establishment tried every trick in the book to deny voters what they wanted, the party is on the verge of coming to power at last simply because there seems to be no other way around.

Belgium has a more fragmented political landscape that still allows giant coalitions to bypass the Vlaams Belang on the federal and regional levels, but the party’s consistent electoral victories have the same disintegrating effect on the mainstream’s false narratives. 

Vandendriessche explained how the governments, judiciary, and media spent untold amounts of time and resources to bar the VB from the public sphere for decades, only to reveal the ruling class’s “utter denial of reality” time and time again—as polls show that the majority of people, even on the Left, no longer support the cordon sanitaire.

“The dam is bursting,” the MEP said, pointing to the many local councils which VB now controls, either with an absolute majority or as part of coalitions. Indeed, the progress seems slow at first, he added, but the collapse of the old, undemocratic order will be exponential. “In 1989, masses of people were waving flags to celebrate to 40th anniversary of the East German ‘democracy,’ only for it to collapse just weeks later,” Vandendriessche said. “Remember, people stop buying your crap long before the sudden crash.”

Reynolds agreed that the end of the cordon sanitaire was inevitable because right-wing parties around Europe had grown too big for a system built on lies to handle. Not just in Austria and Flanders, but all around Europe. Good examples of parties reaching this “critical electoral mass” are France’s National Rally and—hopefully—Germany’s AfD, but one could think of Romania as well where the recent annulment of the presidential elections represents the most extreme and blatantly undemocratic form of the firewall.

Still, we need to remember not to be content with just a few scraps and sham concessions. “It’s a pan-European problem, requiring a pan-European response. A confrontation of the entire anti-democratic system,” Reynolds warned before adding:

The cordon sanitaire cannot hold, but we have to be prepared for a very serious fight to give it a final blow.

"Our agenda is popular, and that's why it cannot be stopped"@TomVandendriese explains how he is pushing back against the anti-democratic cordon sanitaire.

From our sold out event last night. pic.twitter.com/4SfcEsSIGO

— MCC Brussels (@MCC_Brussels) January 30, 2025