When we give away followers on the far right: the boomerang effect

In the field of migration studies, we have long analyzed a dynamic that is as disturbing as it is paradoxical: the policy trap (policy trapThis refers to the situation where public actions, far from achieving their intended goals, end up producing the exact opposite effect. Today, in Catalonia, we are facing one of these traps: a proliferation of institutional plans "against" racism that, instead of defusing hatred, may be fueling the very narratives they seek to eradicate.

We are experiencing what I call the "ideological shift" in diversity policies. We are no longer just talking about managing flows; we are facing a political offensive that criminalizes diversity itself. This trend is fueled by mixophobia (the fear of mixing) and uses two resources that are as false as they are effective. First, the historical resource: the fantasy of a homogeneous past in which heterogeneity is seen as an "abnormality" to be eradicated. Second, the demographic resource: the narrative of replacement, the irrational fear that the minority will become the majority. This cocktail creates an atmosphere of fear in which diversity is perceived as a threat to the established order.

Within this context, we are witnessing a new trend that is already a matter of priority attention in the academic world: the penetration of social activism into government structures. We are facing the emergence of a previously unknown form of governmental activism. This process occurs when the logic of protest and confrontation characteristic of social movements penetrates institutions, transforming the administration into an "anti" agent. The government ceases to be a manager of the common good and a shared public space, becoming instead an actor that reacts from a trench of reactive ideology.

This reaction, which we see in many city councils and in the Catalan government itself, raises a serious question: do these reactive policies achieve their objectives or, on the contrary, do they give even more followers to the far right? The evidence suggests that when politics is limited to being "anti," it risks adopting the adversary's mindset. The system falls into the error of implementing policies "for immigrants" while the only policies directed at the rest of the citizens are "against" them, punishing reactions that often stem from a lack of tools to manage plurality. By focusing solely on the conflict, we are validating that immigration is a "problem." This approach does not reduce xenophobia; it fixes it on the public agenda and contaminates the space for coexistence.

The case of Badalona is the paradigmatic example of how these narratives, when transformed into political action without a counterweight of solid public culture, lead to authoritarian and inhumane practices. When government activism lacks a real management foundation, the void is filled by the most punitive populism.

This is where a critical warning is necessary: ​​interculturalism cannot be disregarded or confused with this reactive activism. There is a danger in conflating concepts and believing that an "anti" policy is an intercultural policy. It is not. While reactive responses stem from fear or confrontation, interculturalism is, by definition, proactive, positive, transformative, and constructive. It is not a bulwark; it is the foundation of a socialization policy for all, necessary for a 21st-century society.

This culture of diversity should not be understood as a measure directed only "at others," but as a socialization tool for everyone. We must understand that diversity is not a temporary accident, but the structural basis of our reality. An intercultural policy implies assuming that everyone—citizens from here and there—must learn to live in diversity. This requires new skills to navigate an environment where multiple cultures and religions coexist. It's not just about "tolerating," but about socializing ourselves within the reality of the other.

A profound reflection is needed: if we continue to respond to the politics of fear with an institutionalized "anti" activism that points fingers but doesn't educate, we will remain trapped in the policy trapIt is time to shift the debate towards a pedagogical and transformative intercultural policy. Only a society that learns to socialize within its own diversity will be able to protect its institutions and guarantee real and lasting social peace.