🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his Reform UK party as a distinct phenomenon that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional epochal event. But this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the United States and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties like his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is leading the polls for both the presidential race and parliament. In the German nation, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, inspired by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to overthrow the international rule of law, diminish human rights and destroy multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge exposes a new and unavoidable truth that democrats overlook at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “group priority” and often “exclusive group focus” 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 driver behind the breaches of international human rights law not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

It is important to grasp the root causes, widespread globally, that have fuelled this new age of nationalism. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalization that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the millions who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, transitioning from a unipolar world once led by the United States to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means open commerce is being replaced by trade barriers. Where economics used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies marked out by reshoring and ally-focused trade and by bans on cross-border trade, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, sinking global collaboration to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the common sense of the global public. In a poll conducted for a prominent organization, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to support international cooperation than many of the leaders who govern them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the world's people (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is unattainable or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

However there are an additional group at the other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through free commerce as a positive sum win-win, or are what an influential thinker calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the world's citizens are moderate in views: 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”, opponents always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates favor a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under specific circumstances. A first group, about a fifth, will back aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists empathize of others and have faith in something larger than their own interests.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are pragmatic multilateralists 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 benefits them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a definite majority can be constructed not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for international measures to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, 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 both.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can overcome current pessimistic, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that demonises newcomers, foreigners and “others” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that responds to people’s need for community and resonates with their everyday worries.

Tackling Key Issues

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be brought under control – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the people are even more worried by what is happening in their own lives and within their own local communities. Last month, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome what’s bad, 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 financial system and community.

However, as the leader also pointed out, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. A Reform leader hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in public services. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not fix downtrodden communities but damage them, turn citizen against citizen and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, poor or vulnerable. Continually from now on, and in every electoral district, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which school and which government service will be the first to be cut or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are telling us all over the Western world is that they want their governments to rebuild our economies and our civic societies. “Reform” and its global allies should be revealed repeatedly for policies that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a case for a better Britain that appeals not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the British people.