Tokyo. Sanae Takaichi’s clear election victory marks a significant shift in Japanese politics. The new prime minister is advocating a firmer stance on security and foreign policy, a sharper delineation from China, and closer strategic ties with the United States. More significant than the individual herself, however, is the message this vote conveys.
Japan is widely regarded as politically stable, institutionally cautious and averse to open confrontation. Policy changes rarely occur abruptly and almost never as a result of emotional protest. When such a country consciously opts for a move to the right, it is less a matter of ideology than of calculated judgement. The new priorities are order, deterrence, state capacity and the defence of national interests. The outcome of the election is therefore not an isolated event, but a contemporary illustration of a broader trend visible across the world.
A glance beyond Japan’s borders shows that the global shift to the right is not merely the result of individual politicians or parties. It reflects a change in political substance.
Right-wing politics beyond the right
This dynamic is particularly visible in countries where left-wing or social democratic governments hold office but pursue policies that are substantively conservative. Denmark offers the clearest example. For several years, the Social Democrats have implemented one of the strictest migration regimes in Europe.
A central element is the state-defined “ghetto” policy. Residential areas are designated as problematic on the basis of measurable criteria: a high proportion of non-Western migrants, low employment rates, elevated crime levels and limited educational attainment. Once an area is classified in this way, the state intervenes extensively. Children are required to attend compulsory language and civic programmes from pre-school age. Harsher penalties apply to certain offences. Immigration into designated districts is restricted, and housing estates are redeveloped or demolished to promote social mixing.
At the same time, social benefits for newly arrived migrants have been curtailed. The policy also includes explicitly communicated deterrence abroad. Asylum is not intended to serve as an attractive pathway to immigration. This approach was not imposed by right-wing parties; it was deliberately advanced by the Social Democrats themselves. It reflects a functional understanding of politics: problems are addressed administratively rather than bypassed through moral posturing.
International pattern
Austria is experiencing a similar development, albeit more openly. The rightward shift is now a parliamentary reality. The Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) is the strongest force in the National Council. This is not a short-term fluctuation but the outcome of a sustained realignment of priorities. Migration, domestic security, rising prices, energy costs and national sovereignty have dominated political debate for years.
It is notable that many of these positions have since been adopted by other parties. Stricter asylum legislation, limits on social benefits for foreign nationals, and a stronger emphasis on deportations and border protection have entered the political mainstream. The FPÖ has benefited from this, having addressed these issues early, consistently and with clear messaging. Austria is therefore not an outlier but a reference point for political change in Western Europe.
Germany, by contrast, appears to be in a transitional phase. The shift to the right is clearly visible in society, yet it is reflected in policy only to a limited extent. The Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) leads in several nationwide polls, in some cases by a considerable margin over the CDU/CSU and the SPD. At the same time, however, there have been no fundamental structural changes. Migration, domestic security, economic stagnation and industrial weakness dominate the debate, but rarely translate into coherent political action. Compared with Denmark or Austria, Germany appears to be at an impasse.
The United Kingdom represents a different variant of the same trend. The decisive turning point was not the rise of a right-wing party, but Brexit. National sovereignty was politically re-legitimised without a traditional right-wing force holding office. The fact that many expectations have remained unfulfilled helps to explain the rise of Reform UK. The British case illustrates that a rightward shift can be formally concluded yet continue to gather momentum if its promises are perceived to have fallen short.
France offers an example of a sustained shift to the right. Marine Le Pen acts less as a revolutionary figure than as a constant pressure point. Regardless of who holds office, French politics has moved rightwards in key policy areas. Security legislation, states of emergency, tighter asylum rules and a stronger emphasis on national identity have also been advanced by governments that did not originate from the right-wing camp.
Global context: the United States, Eastern Europe, Latin America
The United States occupies a distinctive position. During Donald Trump’s presidency, political conflicts began to be articulated more openly. Issues that had previously been obscured by moral rhetoric moved to the centre of debate. Migration, cultural fragmentation, the economic decline of large sections of the population and a growing loss of trust in institutions became defining political themes. Regardless of how individual measures are assessed, the broader political framework has shifted in a lasting way. National interests are once again treated as legitimate, and state authority is regarded as a core responsibility of government.
Eastern Europe presents a different picture. In countries such as Hungary and Poland, this trajectory has not been fundamentally interrupted. Border protection, national sovereignty and scepticism towards supranational intervention have long formed part of the political mainstream. The rightward shift appears less dramatic because it represents continuity rather than correction. While Western Europe is now adjusting its course, several Eastern European states had already sought to pre-empt developments they regarded as destabilising.
A comparable pattern can be observed in Latin America. In Chile, a candidate campaigning on security, order and the enforcement of state authority prevailed after years of political instability and rising crime. In Argentina, President Javier Milei embodies a distinct libertarian variant of the rightward shift. There, the correction is directed not towards a stronger state but towards its radical curtailment, as existing institutions are perceived to be dysfunctional. The instruments differ, yet the underlying impulse is similar.
Spain as an exception – which proves little
Spain represents the most significant counterexample and is therefore analytically instructive. While many countries are tightening migration policy or seeking to discourage arrivals, the government in Madrid has chosen a different course. The Socialist administration has approved a comprehensive plan to regularise the residence status of approximately half a million illegal migrants.
According to Migration Minister Elma Saiz Delgado, the measure is intended to improve integration and stimulate economic growth. The new rules are due to enter into force between April and June this year. They apply to migrants who have been living in the country for at least five months and who submit an application for international protection by the end of 2025. A clean criminal record is a prerequisite for obtaining residence status. The government argues that many of those affected are already embedded in society but work in the informal economy. Regularisation is intended to address this situation while at the same time supporting the labour market, particularly in agriculture, construction and tourism.
The policy has, however, drawn sharp criticism. The opposition Partido Popular and Vox warn of perverse incentives and potential consequences for the Schengen area. Conservative voices at European level are calling for an assessment of the impact on secondary migration flows. At the same time, the government has secured support from civic initiatives and the Catholic Church.
The figures illustrate the scale of the issue. According to the Funcas think tank, the number of migrants without legal residence has increased sevenfold since 2017. More than seven million foreign nationals currently live in Spain. Migration is therefore among the most sensitive political questions in the country. Spain does not contradict the broader rightward shift; rather, it demonstrates that political responses depend on economic structure, labour market conditions and migration history.
Common denominator
Japan, Denmark, Austria, Germany, Great Britain, France, the United States, Eastern Europe, as well as Chile and Argentina illustrate different expressions of the same development. The global rightward shift is not primarily a movement of parties but of policies. Societies are responding to rising living costs, migration as a permanent condition, overstretched state structures, security concerns and growing distrust of political elites.
Where left-wing parties address these issues pragmatically, they retain political viability or adjust their course accordingly. Where they block, moralise or defer decisions, they lose support. The right does not benefit simply by virtue of its label, but because it acts decisively or generates pressure that compels adaptation.
The Japanese election is emblematic of this development. Not because Japan is exceptional, but because political priorities are changing there as well. The global rightward shift does not follow individuals or parties. It follows lived experience and the question of whether politics can function effectively again.