Terror attacks leave political aftershocks long after the violence ends. An analysis of more than 140,000 tweets shows how Islamist attacks in France pushed mainstream parties to adopt a harsher, more exclusionary language on multiculturalism and Islam—narrowing the gap between the political centre and the far right, with lasting consequences for democratic debate.
Elena Cossu
January 12, 2026
Terror attacks do not only cause devastation in the moment. They also change the way politics and political communication is conducted. In France, the wave of Islamist attacks between 2015 and 2016, including the Charlie Hebdo shooting, the Bataclan massacre and the Nice truck attack, reshaped not just public life but also political debate. Parties across the spectrum began speaking differently about multiculturalism, Islam and national identity.
In an article in Politics and Governance, Caterina Froio and I examined how French parties communicated on these issues between 2014 and 2021. We collected more than 140,000 tweets from all major political parties and analyzed them using advanced language models. One model identified tweets related to multiculturalism-related topics, including immigration, secularism (laïcité), Islam and integration. Another measured the tone—positive, neutral or negative—of each tweet. We then compared party communication in the ten months before and after each major terror attack. This allowed us to see how attention and sentiment shifted over time. The findings are clear. Attacks did not simply increase the amount of discussion on these issues. They also led to mainstream parties sounding more negative, which brought them closer to the language of the far right.
Setting the tone: the far right stays constant, others shift
The French far right, led by the Rassemblement National (renamed from the Front National in 2018), had long been critical of multiculturalism and Islam. Its framing remained consistently hostile throughout the period we studied. What changed was the behavior of mainstream parties. From the Socialists to Les Républicains, parties that traditionally presented themselves as defenders of liberal values shifted their tone after the attacks. What had once been considered radical language became normalized. This process can be understood as a kind of contagion. Parties influence each other in two ways. They talk more about the same issues, which we call salience contagion. Or they adopt similar positions and framing, which we call position contagion. Our research shows little evidence of the first: parties did not dramatically increase the number of tweets about multiculturalism. But we found strong evidence of the second: after each attack, the tone of mainstream parties grew more negative, especially toward Islam.
Who talked the most
One surprising finding was which party devoted the most attention to multiculturalism. Over the period studied, it was not the far right but the Socialist Party. With around 4,100 tweets on the subject, nearly two and a half times the average across parties, it engaged with these themes even more than the Front/Rassemblement National. This intense focus peaked during 2016 and 2017, overlapping with the presidential election campaign, before tapering off. Other parties, such as La France Insoumise and the Communist Party, also devoted considerable attention to multiculturalism. Meanwhile, centrist formations like Renaissance (then En Marche) and the Mouvement Démocrate posted far less on these issues. Their strategy seemed to be avoiding divisive debates rather than amplifying them. Overall, multiculturalism was not the exclusive property of the far right. It featured across the political spectrum, though framed in very different ways.
A harsher tone after attacks
When we examined sentiment, the pattern was clear. After the 2015 and 2016 attacks, most parties adopted more negative language about multiculturalism, while positive language became rarer. This was especially true for the Socialist Party, Les Républicains and the Communist Party, all of which shifted noticeably toward negativity after the attacks. Even parties that had previously expressed relatively balanced or positive views grew more critical. The one exception was the Front National, which did not significantly change its tone. Its stance was already highly negative. In some cases, it even appeared slightly less negative after attacks, which shows how mainstream parties were the ones moving closer to its position.
Laïcité: from principle to weapon
A central theme in this shift was laïcité, the French principle of secularism. Originally designed to ensure the equal treatment of all religions, laïcité has become increasingly contested. After the attacks, mainstream parties began using the concept in a more exclusionary way. Instead of promoting neutrality, laïcité was invoked to criticize visible expressions of Islam, such as headscarves and veils, and to argue that these practices were incompatible with French values. Tweets like “The Islamic veil is a fundamental battle for the Republic” (Socialist Party) or “Laïcité means freedom from religious pressure. If you cannot accept our values, maybe France is not for you” (Les Républicains) illustrate how a civic principle once meant to protect diversity was turned into a tool of exclusion.
Why this matters
These findings highlight a paradox at the heart of contemporary democracy. In moments of crisis, leaders often claim to defend liberal values. Yet in doing so, they may adopt rhetoric that undermines those same principles, especially when it comes to cultural and religious diversity. By moving closer to the far right’s framing, mainstream parties risk normalizing illiberal discourse. Over time, this blurs the line between radical and mainstream politics and reshapes what counts as acceptable political debate. Crucially, these shifts did not vanish once the immediate shock of the attacks faded. Negative language about multiculturalism persisted, which suggests a deeper structural change in French politics.
Lessons beyond France
France’s experience is part of a wider trend. Across Europe, far-right parties have long campaigned against multiculturalism. Our study shows how critical events like terror attacks can accelerate the spread of their positions into the mainstream, even in countries with strong traditions of liberal democracy. The French case also reveals the central role of civic values. Concepts like laïcité can be interpreted to protect diversity or to suppress it. The choices political actors make in moments of crisis have lasting consequences.
What can be done
Moments of crisis will continue to test democracies. Political leaders face a choice. They can respond with inclusive rhetoric that promotes unity, or they can borrow exclusionary framings that deepen divides. Citizens and journalists also have a role to play. They can scrutinize the language politicians use, question when fear is turned into a political weapon, and insist that civic values be applied fairly. Finally, education that clarifies the difference between secularism as equality and secularism as exclusion is essential. Without this, principles like laïcité risk being misused to justify discrimination rather than protect freedoms.
*******
Author:
Elena Cossu is a post-doctoral researcher at the Center for European Studies and Comparative Politics at Sciences Po.
The AUTHLIB consortium does not take collective positions. Publications only represent the views of their individual authors.
*******
Source of picture: BalkansCat via Shutterstock
