A N A LYS I S Authors: Alisa Kockar, Ema Džejna Smolo-Zukan, Adnan Ćerimagić Editors: Dr Nađa Bobičić, Dimitar Nikolovski May 2026 Toolkit on Countering the Far Right in Southeast Europe CHAPTER I From the Neighbourhood Up: A Practice for Fair and Courageous Democratic Living

Imprint Publisher Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation Dialouge Southeast Europe Kupreška 20 71000 Sarajevo Bosnia-Herzegovina info.soe@fes.de Publishing department Eastern Europe Department Responsibility for content and editing Sarah Hees-Kalyani, Director, FES in Bosnia and Herzegovina Regional Coordinator, FES Dialogue Southeast Europe Harun Cero, Program Manager, FES Dialogue Southeast Europe Contact Sarah Hees-Kalyani, Regional Coordinator Harun Cero, Program Manager Design/Layout Azra Kadić Front page design Azra Kadić The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.(FES). Commercial use of the media published by the FES is not permitted without the written consent of the FES. FES publications may not be used for election campaignpurposes. May 2026 © Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V. ISBN 978-9926-576-35-6 ID 69868294 Further publications of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung can be found here: ↗ www.fes.de/publikationen

Alisa Kockar, Ema Džejna Smolo-Zukan, Adnan Ćerimagić May 2026 Toolkit on Countering the Far Right in Southeast Europe CHAPTER I From the Neighbourhood Up: A Practice for Fair and Courageous Democratic Living Sarajevo, 2026.

Contents Executive Summary...............................................  3 A Letter from the Neighbourhood we deserve..........................  4 Democracy.......................................................  6 Solidarity........................................................  7 Community......................................................  8 Diversity.........................................................  9 Security........................................................  10 Equality........................................................  11 Justice.........................................................  12 Dignity.........................................................  13 Easy to say, but how do i show my Values in Practice?..................  14 Practical Ways to show your Values.................................  15 Lessons Learned.................................................  16 Not a conclusion, but a beginning...................................  16 Introduction to Chapter II ..........................................  16 Key-Takeaways:...................................................  17

Executive Summary Across Southeast Europe and the Western Balkans, the Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation has worked for decades alongside trade unions, civil society organisations, progressive political actors, and engaged citizens to strengthen democracy, social justice, and social cohesion. Our experience in the region tells us something very clear: the far right does not advance only because of its own strength, but also because democratic, progressive alternatives are too often fragmented, abstract, or disconnected from people’s everyday realities. This Toolkit is our response to that challenge. The normalisation of far-right politics in Southeast Europe is no longer a distant warning but a lived condition. Exclusionary ideas have moved from the margins into mainstream political language; fear is presented as “common sense”; and authoritarian practices are justified as pragmatism or protection. In accession countries and EU member states alike, this shift threatens democratic institutions, social solidarity, minority rights, and the very idea that politics can serve the many rather than the few. For FES, countering these dynamics is not only a matter of defending liberal norms, but of renewing the socialdemocratic promise: that democracy must deliver dignity, security, and fairness in people’s daily lives. This is why we believe a practical toolkit is urgently needed. Too many resources on the far right remain either purely analytical or reactive—explaining what the far right is, or why it is dangerous, without equipping democratic actors with the language, strategies, and confidence to engage people where they are. This publication starts from a different premise: that countering the far right begins not with slogans or moral superiority, but with lived experience, shared values, and visible democratic practice. Chapter One grounds the Toolkit in everyday life. By opening with a familiar neighbourhood rather than an abstract theory, it reminds us that democracy, solidarity, and dignity are not distant ideals but things people already practice—often quietly—across the region. Drawing on these experiences, the chapter translates core progressive values into a clear, accessible communication framework that speaks directly to the concerns the far right exploits: security, belonging, fairness, and control over one’s future. From an FES perspective, this approach reflects a longstanding conviction of social democracy: that political imagination must grow from social reality, not be imposed from above. Chapter Two provides the analytical backbone needed to understand what democratic actors are up against. It shows how far-right politics in Southeast Europe has adapted to geopolitical upheaval, crises, and global power shifts, becoming more strategic, more respectable in appearance, and more deeply embedded in mainstream politics. For FES, this analysis is essential because it moves the discussion beyond“extremism” and forces us to confront a more uncomfortable truth: that democracy is being hollowed out incrementally, often with broad public consent. Recognising this process is a precondition for resisting it effectively. Chapter Three demonstrates that resistance is not theoretical. Through concrete examples from Serbia, Hungary, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, it shows that democratic pressure can be built even under illiberal conditions—when people organise collectively, remain visible, and act with moral clarity and care. These cases resonate strongly with FES’s work in the region, where we have seen again and again that sustainable change comes from persistence, alliances, and the defence of public goods, rather than from short-lived outrage or elite-driven campaigns. Taken together, this Toolkit reflects the Friedrich-EbertStiftung’s belief that countering the far right is not only about opposing something, but about building something better. It is an invitation to activists, organisers, trade unionists, politicians, and engaged citizens to reconnect democratic politics with everyday life; to speak about security without fear, community without exclusion, and dignity without conditions; and to act in ways that make democracy visible, credible, and worth defending. In a region shaped by crisis, inequality, and democratic fatigue, this is not an optional exercise—it is a democratic necessity. 3

This chapter begins with a simple letter describing a neighbourhood where democracy, solidarity, community, and dignity are not slogans but lived practices. It is not a utopia, but a reminder that political imagination must start from everyday life: affordable housing, open assemblies, decisions made together, and people who feel safe because they rely on one another. This reminder comes as especially necessary in places where people have long been told that real change is impossible, or at the very least, impossibly distant. Using this vision as a starting point, the chapter offers a toolkit for leftist activists, organisers, and citizens who want to speak clearly and confidently about these core values. Through concise questions and answers, it provides arguments that counter right-wing narratives and show how a fairer society can be built in practice. A Letter from the Neighbourhood we deserve Hi mum, Sorry, it took me a while to write. With the move and everything happening at once, I wanted to settle in a bit before telling you about this place. I still cannot believe how different it is from what I expected. When I stepped off the bus into the neighbourhood – yes, right here in the middle of the city – the air felt different. Not cleaner in a dramatic way(though it really is), but lighter, as if people here breathe without pressure on their backs. The scent I was picking up wasn’t exhaust fumes and wood smoke, you know, the winter’s eau de parfum, but it did have tiny traces of fresh-brewed coffee and baked bread. The streets are tidy, lined with small gardens squeezed between apartment blocks, and every building is connected by little paths that lead into shared courtyards. It is not fancy; it is just thoughtful. I passed an older man sitting on a bench, just reading his newspaper. He looked so serene, as if he could fall asleep then and there. Children play together in a mix of languages, inventing games on the spot, switching from football to hide-and-seek in seconds. It feels alive, like a part of the city that has refused to give up on itself. My closest neighbour is an elderly woman who reminds me of aunty. She greeted me the moment I arrived. Before I even unpacked, she had left a plate of warm food on my table. Later, she took me to the community kitchen – a big, open hall on the ground floor of the old municipal building where people cook together in small groups. Everyone brings what they can. Some use vegetables from the shared gardens; others bring recipes from home. Eating together is just what people do here. Nobody is left out. And then there is the issue of housing, which has become increasingly difficult for people my age. Here, apartments are part of a neighbourhood cooperative. Rents are stable, and decisions about renovations or new units are made together. It feels strange to live somewhere where housing is treated as a right, not a race. So many of my friends are living in temporary arrangements; at best, the only good news is that there are more rentals, no matter how absurdly priced they are. I was nervous about work too, but it feels different here. Worth is not measured in hours or titles. Everyone contributes something to the neighbourhood – teaching, repairing, planting, organising events. I am helping the kids with writing and languages, and it feels good to give something back. And they contribute as well – someone fixed my bike; another showed me how the energy-sharing system works for the buildings. Can you imagine that one of my biggest fears about starting work was the paperwork? I was already bracing myself for that familiar scenario: thinking you have everything in order, only to discover that one required form is still missing.Health care is organised through a small neighbourhood clinic. It is simple and direct. You walk in, ask for help, and people do their best. Yesterday I learned something that surprised me even more. Over coffee, the maths teacher explained how decisionmaking works. You know how politics often feels like a distant show performed by people in suits who argue but never listen? Here it is the opposite. Residents gather in assemblies, and everyone has a chance to raise questions, share ideas, or challenge decisions. Teenagers were preparing materials for the next meeting when I walked to work, setting up an info table about energy projects and new housing plans. Budgets are openly shared, no fuss, no secrecy. People want to understand how decisions affect the 4 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.

neighbourhood, and they want to take part. Everyone takes a bit of responsibility. I know this sounds like I am describing a novel, and I am not pretending everything is perfect. They told me about a few issues they still argue about, such as how to protect ourselves more effectively from floods and improve early warning systems. But even disagreements seem calmer here – more like building something together than fighting over who is right. Even when voices rise, they rise for something beyond personal benefit. You can see the difference in people’s faces. There is dignity, real dignity, not the kind someone has to perform. No one hustles to prove their value. People are not ranked by what they own. Instead of climbing over one another, they reach outwards. It creates a kind of safety that is hard to describe. I even forget to lock my door sometimes, and it barely worries me. There is music everywhere – from balconies, courtyards, and kitchens. An accordion here, a guitar there, or just a hummed melody while working. Songs from this region and far beyond. I think I will find it easy to feel at home here. Being in this neighbourhood makes it clear that a city can be fair if people talk, work, and live together. And somehow, being here makes me feel enough, simply by being part of it. And it is precisely in moments like these, after seeing how people live, decide, and care for one another, that it becomes clear what a community can be: one built on shared responsibility, dignity, and trust. Why begin with a story? Because the neighbourhood described in the letter reflects desires expressed across our societies every day: fairness, security, and a life without humiliation. These desires are political. The challenge is not to recognise them, but to imagine how they can be realised in everyday life. The letter may read like a fiction, but it is not a fantasy. Political imagination in our region is often trapped between two poles. On one side lies the comfort of the status quo, sustained by rigid divisions and an obsession with identity, not because this reflects lived reality, but because it is politically convenient. On the other side are external frameworks that assume our societies must simply“catch up”. Both overlook a crucial fact: communities in this region have long practised solidarity, mutual care, and collective responsibility. The letter recalls how neighbourhoods can function differently when people share responsibility, decide together, and treat one another with dignity. It shows how ordinary practices – shared meals, open assemblies, secure housing, accessible health care, collective work – create safety and belonging in ways no top-down policy can replicate. This chapter starts from the premise that democratic imagination grows where people live. The following pages translate the atmosphere of the letter – neighbours talking, deciding, and caring for one another – into practical guidance for public communication. Organised around eight themes – democracy, solidarity, community, diversity, security, equality, justice, and dignity – each section offers four clear questions and answers to help leftist activists, politicians, organisers, and engaged citizens speak with clarity and confidence about the society they seek to build. The aim is simple: to strengthen arguments, expose rightwing narratives, and show how leftist politics offers practical, humane alternatives grounded in real life. 5

Democracy Q1. What is democracy in practice? Democracy is not speeches in parliament but neighbours deciding together how their street should work. It is a collective choice, not gifts from leaders. We argue that democracy is strongest when people shape their own lives. On the other hand, the far-right prefers centralised authority and strong leaders who claim to speak for all, often presenting this as efficiency. Real democracy grows from participation, not from power concentrated above. Efficiency should not come at the cost of people being heard, and politicians should represent voices, not claim power. Q2. How does participatory democracy strengthen society? Participatory democracy feels like walking into a meeting where people know your name and your concerns matter. When people make decisions together, they defend what they have created. A bike path chosen in an assembly is maintained and protected because everyone feels a sense of ownership. Leftist politics sees shared decision-making as a source of responsibility. The right-wing politics often claim that ordinary citizens are incapable or untrustworthy. Experience shows the opposite: trust rises when power is shared rather than hoarded. Q3. Why does democracy require equality? Democracy fails if only the loudest or richest can speak. Equal access – to information, public spaces, and basic services – ensures that all voices matter. The left insists that equality is the foundation of democratic participation. The right often normalises inequality and calls it natural. Democracy cannot function when many are excluded even before the conversation begins. Q4. How does the left expand democracy? By widening participation: teenagers chairing meetings, women leading committees, migrants proposing solutions, renters shaping housing policy. The left seeks deeper, broader involvement and all the different expertise and skills. The right tends to narrow democracy to majorities, borders, or leaders. A democracy that excludes is not about democracy but control. 6 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.

Solidarity Q1. What is solidarity? It is the certainty that hardship will be met with help, not judgement. A neighbour fixing a pipe because tomorrow you will help watch his children is an act of everyday solidarity. The left places solidarity at the centre of politics. The right glorifies self-reliance and treats mutual care as weakness. Everyone depends on others, and this creates connections between us all. Q2. Why does solidarity matter for security and justice? Safety grows from trust, not fear. Floods often affect our region. Whenever they came, people opened their doors without waiting for instructions and that saved lives. The left strengthens security through cooperation and mutual care. The right undermines it by dividing society into “deserving” and“undeserving”. Division does nothing but hurt all of us eventually. Q3. How does solidarity counter far-right narratives? The far-right points fingers:“They are the problem.” Solidarity builds a collective voice:“We solve problems together.” When refugees arrived, and residents added extra plates to the table, fear lost its power. The left builds shared belonging—the right profits from suspicion. Q4. How can solidarity be nurtured? Through simple, repeated practices: shared meals, collective work days, open events, and neighbourhood help networks. The left builds solidarity through care and cooperation. Right-wing politics focuses on spectacle – flags, borders, parades – without building support between people. Real solidarity is lived, not performed. If a baker in your community loses their shop, organising rotating orders in your neighbourhood to keep the bakery open is solidarity. If that solidarity depends on what we assume about this person’s identity, then it’s not solidarity but performance. Last, and perhaps most importantly, people in our region have repeatedly shown that strangers can become partners when it matters. We share hope, grief, and hardship, not as abstract values but through action. Collective responses to floods, solidarity during summer wildfires, and countless smaller acts of mutual aid offer constant proof that community can endure beyond political division. Practising solidarity in everyday life allows this sense of togetherness to persist not only in moments of crisis, but as a lasting foundation of how we live together. 7

Community Q1. What makes a real community? Shared spaces, shared responsibilities, and shared care. When everyone helps maintain the playground, everyone feels ownership. The left sees community as inclusive and practical. The right often uses“community” to justify exclusion based on ethnicity or nationality. True community grows from participation, not from walls, and flourishes only when our differences become our strength on the path toward the same goal. Q2. How does community differ from nationalism? Nationalism creates enemies and claims ownership. Community creates support and friendship. A grandmother teaching a child of a different ethnic background to bake bread is a community. The right defines community by whom it excludes: the left opens doors, the right closes them. Q3. Why is community essential for democracy? Because democracy is learned and best practiced locally. People first encounter debate, compromise, and cooperation where they live, because we all rely on the same basics, such as drinking water and street lighting, regardless of ideology or religion. When children see adults disagree respectfully in assemblies, they learn that disagreement is not hostility. The left treats the community as the foundation of democracy. The right tends to bypass the community and centralise authority in leaders. Q4. How can communities be strengthened today? By investing in public spaces that bring people together: libraries, courtyards, community kitchens, parks. The left builds infrastructure for connection. The right often neglects or privatises such spaces. When shared places vanish, community weakens. When they thrive, people thrive. 8 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.

Diversity Q1. Why is diversity a strength? Because it brings new ideas, skills, and cultures that enrich everyone. A Syrian neighbour introducing new herbs or recipes improves the shared table. The left sees diversity as social wealth. The right frames it as a threat. Daily life shows that diversity improves communities. People have survived different histories and hardships; their differences make their cooperation stronger and do not minimise or exploite the experiences of others. Q2. How is diversity lived? Through everyday encounters: music, food, languages, shared work. Roma violins in the morning, Albanian songs in the evening, children dancing to African rhythms. Diversity becomes culture when people meet, not when they are separated. The left creates space for these encounters. The right tries to silence them. Q3. What is the left’s message on diversity? That freedom is expanded when all can belong. At school plays, children perform in their languages, and everyone applauds. The left sees diversity as a foundation of belonging. The right claims diversity undermines unity, but unity based on sameness is brittle. Q4. How do we defend diversity against far-right attacks? By showing that it works in practice. When someone complained of“too many foreigners”, the assembly pointed to the thriving community garden maintained by migrant farmers. Reality defeated prejudice. The left defends diversity with evidence of shared success. The right relies on fear. Lived cooperation disproves their claims. 9

Security Q1. What is real security? Real security means being safe in your home, your street, and your future. It is stable housing, reliable public services, and neighbours who will help in crisis. It is the confidence of taking the late bus home without fear, and of sleeping without anxiety about rent or utility bills. The left defines security as protection through solidarity and strong public institutions. The right often reduces security to policing and borders, ignoring the everyday conditions that make people unsafe. True security starts with people, not with fear. Q2. How is security built in everyday life? Security grows from trust. Well-lit streets, open community centres, and safe public transport protect people more effectively than slogans. The left builds security through prevention: good schools, social services, and strong local networks. The right claims safety requires force and surveillance. But communities are safer when people look out for one another, not when everyone is treated as a threat. Q3. Why does inequality undermine security? Because when people are forced into desperation, societies become fragile. Evictions, unemployment, and poverty create fear and instability. The left argues that reducing inequality strengthens safety for all. The right often blames vulnerable groups while refusing to address the causes of insecurity. A society with fewer divides is a society with fewer dangers. Q4. How does the left respond to the right’s fear politics? By showing that fear is a poor substitute for security. When the right says“build walls” or“add more police”, the left says“build trust” and“invest in people”. Fear divides; security requires cooperation. Leftist security is practical, collective, and grounded in shared wellbeing, not in scapegoating. 10 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.

Equality Q1. What does equality mean in practice? Equality is not an abstract principle; it is whether people can live safely, earn fairly, and participate fully regardless of background. The left sees equality as the basis for freedom. The right often treats inequality as natural or deserved. Equality in practice means removing barriers so all can contribute and belong. Q2. Why is equality essential for democracy? Democracy only works when everyone has an equal chance to speak and be heard. When housing, education, or digital access are unequal, participation becomes unequal. The left argues that democracy requires equal footing. The right often tolerates unequal access and calls it merit. But where voices are unequal, democracy is hollow. Q3. How does the left expand equality? By levelling the playing field: universal public services, fair taxation, strong labour rights, and inclusive social policies. The right tends to limit equality to formal rights while defending systems that benefit the already powerful. The left aims for real, lived equality, not symbolic gestures. Q4. How does equality strengthen society? More equal societies have lower crime, better health, stronger trust, and more stable economies. The left sees equality as an investment in society. The right frames equality as a burden or threat to ambition. But all evidence shows that societies flourish when opportunities are shared, not hoarded. 11

Justice Q1. What is justice beyond the courts? Justice is fairness in everyday life: safe housing, dignified work, access to education, and protection from abuse. The left sees justice as social, economic, and legal. The right often limits justice to punishment and policing. But a society is only just when everyone receives fair treatment and fair chances. Q2. How does the left build justice? By addressing root causes: poverty, discrimination, corruption, and unequal power. The left supports strong public institutions and transparent rules. The right tends to focus on harsh penalties while ignoring the conditions that produce harm. Justice is strongest when prevention stands alongside accountability. Q3. Why is collective justice better than punitive justice? Punishment alone does not heal communities. Justice that includes repair, restitution, and prevention creates safer societies. The left invests in social workers, community centres, and rehabilitation. The right often glorifies punishment as strength. But strength is preventing harm, not reacting to it. Q4. How does the left counter the right’s“law and order” rhetoric? By showing that real order comes from fairness, not fear. When the right demands harsher policing, the left demands honest institutions, equal laws, and corruptionfree governance. Justice is not louder sirens; it is fair rules applied equally to everyone, including the powerful. 12 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.

Dignity Q1. What is dignity in political terms? Dignity means being treated as a full human being, not as a burden, threat, or tool. It is stable income, secure housing, affordable health care, and respect. The left places dignity at the centre of policy; every person must have the means to live decently. The right often divides people into“deserving” and“undeserving”. But dignity cannot be conditional. Q2. Why does dignity matter for democracy? People who lack dignity cannot participate equally. If someone works three jobs or fears eviction, they cannot attend assemblies or engage politically. The left argues that dignity enables democratic voice. The right often claims that hardship is individual failure. But without dignity, democracy becomes privilege. Q3. How does the left protect dignity? Through universal rights and strong public services. When health, housing, and education are guaranteed, people stand taller in every sense. The right frames dignity as something earned through competition. The left sees dignity as a starting point, not a prize. Q4. How does dignity counter far-right narratives? The far right thrives on humiliation: blaming the weak, mocking the poor, attacking minorities. The left answers with dignity for all. When people feel secure, respected, and valued, fear loses its grip. Dignity closes the space where hatred grows. It builds confidence in one another instead of suspicion. 13

Easy to say, but how do i show my Values in Practice? Start small, and start together. The first step is clarity. What is the single message you want people to remember? What concrete problem are you trying to address, and is it solvable? Which value does it express: democracy, dignity, security, equality? This work takes time, but without a clear core message it becomes difficult to judge whether your actions, statements, or content actually serve a purpose. Returning to this message repeatedly helps maintain focus and coherence. The second step is to define who you want to reach. Audiences are never uniform, but two broad groups are often central. When engaging young people online, through platforms such as TikTok or Instagram reels, focus on participation, agency, and their role in shaping change. Justice, particularly social and economic justice, resonates strongly here. When speaking to so-called neutral citizens who are exposed to right-wing narratives, justice remains important, but it must be combined with messages of safety, stability, and predictability. In these cases, formats such as Instagram feeds, carousels, and Facebook posts often work better, as they allow ideas to be explained calmly and repeatedly. Resources matter, and they are never neutral. Far-right actors invest heavily in visibility and repetition, and they cannot be countered overnight. This makes planning essential. Presence in local communities and a consistent online presence must reinforce one another. Limited budgets are not a barrier if other resources are used well: time, creativity, and people. Short content usually requires more effort than long text, as it must be precise, engaging, and timely. For this reason, communication should be a collective effort. Teams that plan together, exchange ideas, and support one another are better equipped to sustain long-term engagement and to build new leftist spaces, both online and offline. Solidarity is not only a value to promote, but a method of working. The aim throughout is to build trust and understanding. Leftist solutions work in practice: public services can be delivered, shared spaces can be protected, and security can be strengthened through cooperation. Values are not slogans; they shape everyday life. Democracy is not distant or abstract. It exists wherever people organise locally, speak up, and are taken seriously. 14 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.

Practical Ways to show your Values → Use storytelling. Share real experiences that reflect your values. Invite someone affected by police violence to describe how safe they feel today, or someone who moved from another country to explain what helped them feel at home. Stories connect values to lived reality. → Show solutions that work. Document how tenants decide whether to build a park or extend parking, and explain how decisions are made. Make processes visible and understandable. Showing how things function in practice makes a fairer future feel realistic rather than abstract. → Focus on the neighbourhood. People trust what they recognise. Conversations about diversity and migration should start with familiar figures: the local ice-cream maker, the neighbour who runs a small shop, the colleague everyone relies on. Proximity creates credibility and emotion. → Address real problems with real plans. Promises require clear steps. If housing affordability or public services are the issue, show how they will be improved. Determination and detail are what make commitments believable. → Be concise. You have seconds to capture attention and little more time to explain substance. Longer formats should be supported by shorter ones to ensure they are seen at all. → Use existing formats creatively. Trends, memes, and simple visuals can increase reach if used thoughtfully. Authentic photos and videos, a consistent visual identity, and a focus on people rather than numbers help messages travel further. → Engage, do not humiliate. The goal is not to mock those influenced by far-right rhetoric, but to offer alternatives. Unequal access to information and opportunity matters. People are more open when they feel respected and included. → Stay focused and invite action. Every piece of content should serve the core message and end with a clear invitation: attend a meeting, support a local initiative, talk to a neighbour. Limited resources require disciplined choices. 15

Lessons Learned 1. Lead with people, not arguments. Stories reveal values more clearly than confrontation. Repeating far-right frames weakens credibility. 2. Be practical and local. One clear problem and one achievable step build ownership and momentum. 3. Keep it human. Acknowledge uncertainty and show care. Solutions grow out of trust, not perfection. 4. Use hopeful language, grounded in plans and accountability. Optimism without substance convinces no one. 5. Use plain language and one clear call to action. Facts matter, but emotion creates connection. Balance both. 6. Be consistent. Trust is built over time. Focus on what matters most now and accept that winning back communities is a long-distance effort, not a sprint. Not a conclusion, but a beginning These reflections show that leftist politics is strongest when it is anchored in everyday life: in secure homes, shared spaces, reliable institutions, and relationships built on trust. The stories and examples in this chapter go beyond rhetoric. They sketch a practical way of living together, grounded in equality, care, and collective responsibility. Introduction to Chapter II Chapter Two takes us from neighbourhood life to the wider political landscape, showing how the far right has grown more strategic, more visible, and more embedded in everyday politics across Southeast Europe. These movements do not rely solely on extremism or loud rhetoric—they gain ground by tapping into fears, frustrations, and uncertainties that people experience every day. They appear“normal,” even practical, while slowly shifting the rules of the game in their favour. Understanding this is crucial: the threat is often quiet, incremental, and subtle, but no less real. By seeing how far-right ideas spread and settle into public life, we can respond in ways that are practical, grounded, and connected to the realities of the communities we live in— building resilience not with slogans, but with care, clarity, and everyday action. 16 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.

Key-Takeaways: → The far right advances when democratic politics feels distant from everyday life, effective resistance must therefore be rooted in people’s lived experiences, addressing concrete concerns such as housing, security, dignity, and belonging rather than relying only on abstract political messaging. → Democracy is strongest when practiced locally and collectively, through shared decision-making, solidarity, public spaces, and inclusive communities that build trust, participation, and resilience against fear-based and exclusionary politics. → Countering far-right narratives requires practical, hopeful, and human communication, using storytelling, local examples, clear solutions, and consistent community engagement to demonstrate that equality, justice, and solidarity are achievable in everyday life. 17

About the Authors: Alisa Kockar – Project Manager at Liberating Research Ema Džejna Smolo-Zukan - Regional Communications Coordinator at Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Dialogue Southeast Europe(FES SOE) Adnan Ćerimagić - Senior Analyst for EU Integration and the Western Balkans at the European Stability Initiative (ESI) Editors Dr. Nađa Bobičić - Research associate at the Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Belgrade Dimitar Nikolovski - Executive Director of Eurothink Centre for European Strategies 18 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.

Toolkit on Countering the Far Right in Southeast Europe CHAPTER I From the Neighbourhood Up: A Practice for Fair and Courageous Democratic Living This Toolkit emerges from the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung’s long-standing engagement across Southeast Europe and the Western Balkans, where for decades we have worked alongside trade unions, civil society organisations, progressive political actors, and engaged citizens to strengthen democracy, social justice, and social cohesion. It is grounded in a simple but urgent observation: the far right advances not only because of its own organisational strength, but because democratic and progressive alternatives too often fail to connect with people’s lived experiences, insecurities, and aspirations. At a time when exclusionary politics are increasingly normalised, authoritarian tendencies are reframed as pragmatism, and fear is presented as“common sense,” democratic actors require more than abstract analysis or reactive condemnation. They need practical tools, accessible language, and strategies that reconnect politics with everyday life and restore confidence in democratic action. This publication responds to that need by combining political analysis with concrete approaches for democratic engagement. It situates the rise of the far right within the changing geopolitical landscape of Southeast Europe, where contemporary right-wing extremism has evolved beyond marginal ethnonationalist movements into a broader ecosystem of populist radical-right actors operating within mainstream electoral politics. At the same time, the Toolkit demonstrates that democratic resistance remains both possible and necessary. Through practical communication frameworks and examples of civic mobilisation from across the region, it argues that countering the far right is not only about defending liberal norms, but about renewing the social-democratic promise of dignity, security, fairness, and solidarity. Ultimately, this Toolkit is an invitation to activists, organisers, trade unionists, politicians, and engaged citizens to make democracy visible, credible, and worth defending in everyday life. Further information on this topic can be found here: ↗ fes.de