🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his Reform UK party as a unique occurrence that has burst on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable epochal event. However this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the United States and South America, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties like his are also leading in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In the German nation, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, seeking to dethrone the international rule of law, weaken human rights and undermine international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave exposes a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy ignore at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” and often “my tribe first and only” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment that helps explain why the world is now composed of many autocratic states and fewer democratic ones, and this ideology is the force behind the violations of global human rights standards not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

Crucial to grasp the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this new age of nationalism. It starts with a widely felt sense that a globalization that was open but not inclusive has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

Over the past ten years, political figures have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the United States to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has provoked means free trade is giving way to trade barriers. Where economics used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies characterized by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by bans on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, sinking international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can find hope in the common sense of the world's population. In a poll conducted for a prominent organization, of thousands of individuals in 34 countries we find a clear majority are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to embrace global teamwork than many of the leaders who govern them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the global population (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between ethnic and religious groups is impossible or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

However there are another 21% at the other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see international collaboration through open trade as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what an influential thinker calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “us” and the “others”, adversaries always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Are most moderates prefer a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or city wall? Yes, under certain conditions. A first group, about a fifth, will back humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of selflessness, backing emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists feel the pain of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for international development are spent well. And there is a third group, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a clear majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this argument is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we stress the reciprocal benefits that flow to them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a need to cooperate, the answer is each.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can overcome current pessimistic, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, globally engaged and welcoming national pride that responds to people’s desire to belong and resonates with their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and it's clear that it must quickly be brought under control – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the people are even more concerned about what is happening in their own lives and within their immediate neighborhoods. Recently, the UK Prime Minister gave an emotional speech about how what’s positive in the nation can drive out what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “dysfunctional” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our economy and community.

However, as the prime minister also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. A Reform leader praised a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was planned – the largest reductions in public services. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by £275bn would not repair downtrodden communities but damage them, create social division and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, needy or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, Reform should be asked which hospital, which school and which government service will be the first to be cut or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are telling us all over the west is that they want their governments to restore our economies and our communities. “Reform” and its international partners should be exposed repeatedly for policies that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be ahead of us, we can go beyond highlighting the party's contradictions by presenting a case for a improved nation that resonates not just to visionaries, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the British people.