Scenario(a) shows a case of resilient institutions despite widespread far-right party demand and party system per­missiveness. Much of Western Europe, with its long-stand­ing democratic institutions, potentially fits this scenario (hitherto), despite increasingly widespread support for ­far-right parties. Scenario(b) shows a case of party system resilience, de­spite weaken(ed) institutions and latent far-right party ­demand. Some cases in Southern Europe during the eco­nomic crisis, such as Greece, fit this scenario. Scenario(c) shows a case in which the far-right voter base is not as broad and rejection rates are high despite weak(ened) institutions and party system permissiveness. This could be a case in which the far right enjoys dispro­portionate power as a coalition partner or its performance has been amplified by the electoral or presidential sys­tem, but there is still a large group of opponents. Some Latin American countries, such as Brazil, fit this scenario: opposition to Bolsonaro was high and there was substan­tial mobilisation of non-far-right voters(Rovira Kaltwasser et al. 2024). What counter-strategies may be effective? This framework helps us to identify specific strategies in accordance with each dimension, as summarised in Table 1. A counter-strategy trilemma? However, there may be trade-offs to consider when decid­ing which dimension to prioritise, as a particular strategy might help to strengthen one dimension while simultane­ously weakening another. For example: → Galvanisation of non-far-right voters(voter dimension): this strategy might help to weaken the far-right voter base but could backfire if the far right is in power (party-­system dimension) and it responds by further strengthening its executive power or proceeds with faster constitutional/ judicial reforms(institutional ­dimension). Examples include Fidesz in Hungary and PiS in Poland. → Demonisation(party-system dimension): this strategy might help to address the issue of party system Counter-strategies across each dimension Table 1 Dimension Voter dimension Party-system dimension Institutional dimension Strategy Dissuasion of peripherals to »break« far-right coalitions Galvanisation of non–far-right ­voters Demonisation Isolation /cordon sanitaire Confrontation Organisation of parliamentary opposition across party families Legislature safeguards Judicial responses Civil society safeguards Details and examples → Focus on existential issues, distributional conflicts and economic insecurities → Reverse or oppose cuts to key services → Tackle welfare competition, lack of access to public housing and job insecurity(e.g. Cavaillé and Ferwerda 2023) → Organise protests and awareness campaigns to mobilise opposition → Expose the far right as extremist rather than merely»right-wing« → Prevent far-right parties from joining government → Avoid cooperation with far-right parties as this may result in normalisation and exacerbate system permissiveness → Avoid copying the far right on issues that it»owns«(e.g. Abou­Chadi et al. 2021; Halikiopoulou and Vlandas 2022). → Communicate party visions that are distinct from far-right messages → Mobilise parliamentary coalitions → Emphasise distinctions between the centre-right and the far right → Implement practices such as electoral monitoring and pursue the effective organisation of parliamentary opposition(Haggard and Kaufman 2021). → Maximise the effectiveness of existing judicial mechanisms: legal sanctions/bans, infringement proceedings and litigation in supranational(e.g. European Court of Justice) and national courts (Blauberger and Kelemen 2016). → Develop early-warning systems, systematic reports and emergency-response campaigns to expose violations of individual rights(Haggard and Kaufman 2021). Arenas of far-right threat and democratic resilience 4