Oxford professor Giovanni Capoccia warns that the France’s center-right risks being absorbed by the radical right if it fails to define clear boundaries on law, free speech, and European integration.
The most consequential political transformation in liberal democracies over the past two decades has been the rise of the radical right, according to Giovanni Capoccia, Professor of Comparative Politics at the University of Oxford.
He argued that France’s mainstream conservatives now face a profound dilemma: how to prevent losing voters and influence to radical competitors while remaining true to liberal-constitutional principles.
Capoccia explained that one of the main drivers is the advance of identity politics on the left, often called “wokeism,” which has made it easier for populist nationalists to mobilize backlash. In countries like France and the United States, radical-right leaders have capitalized on progressive debates over race, gender, and North–South divides.
In France, former interior minister and presidential hopeful Bruno Retailleau, now leader of Les Républicains, described radical Islam as an “accelerant” of instability in his booklet Ne rien céder (Never Give In).
He argued that radical Islam both enables terrorism and exploits democratic freedoms to spread intolerance and values that contradict French and European norms.
Retailleau said legislative and repressive measures alone are insufficient.
He proposed three pillars for a renewed Western identity: rebalancing freedom away from absolutist interpretations in human-rights jurisprudence; confronting “oikophobia”, a disdain for one’s own civilization that he claims aligns Islamist separatism with some strands of woke politics; and recovering national pride in history and civilizational belonging, transmitting it to younger generations while avoiding ethnic nationalism.
Capoccia said these arguments highlight three central dilemmas for the center-right.
“First is the rule of law dilemma: Retailleau faults the ECJ and ECHR for “rights-maximalist” rulings, pointing to cases where terrorists prevailed against state authorities, which the radical right uses to justify curbing judicial independence. The challenge is recalibrating courts without undermining constitutional democracy.
“Second is the freedom of expression dilemma: Retailleau defends the right to criticize religion under France’s laïcité, but controversies over antisemitism and Islamophobia show how fraught and politically exploitable these boundaries are,” he said.
“Third is the nation vs Europe dilemma: while Retailleau calls for pride in national history, poorly framed arguments risk blending into radical-right nationalism and anti-EU sentiment, which could weaken European integration and expose states to geopolitical subordination,” he added.
He warned that ambiguity may provide short-term electoral gains, but it is not a governing strategy. If the center-right fails to draw clear boundaries on law, free speech, and Europeanism, it risks being absorbed, both electorally and intellectually, by the radical right it claims to resist.
