🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his Reform UK party as a unique phenomenon that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable historic moment. But this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also ahead in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is ahead 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 Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, motivated by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, weaken fundamental freedoms and undermine international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge exposes a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy ignore at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has replaced neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “my tribe first” and often “my tribe first and only” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism that helps explain why the world is now composed of 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, 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 one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

It is important to understand the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It begins with a widely felt sense that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has not been fair to all.

For more than a decade, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel left out and marginalized, but also to the shifting dynamics of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the US to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has provoked means open commerce is giving way to trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies characterized by reshoring and friend-shoring and by bans on cross-border trade, investment and technology transfer, lowering international cooperation to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

But all is not lost. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the common sense of the global public. In a poll conducted for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to embrace international cooperation than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the global population (even if 25% in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups is impossible 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 opposite extreme, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, as “America first” 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 permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates prefer a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or city wall? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will back humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of selflessness, backing emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists feel the pain of others and have faith in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for international development are used effectively. And there is a final category, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through ensuring them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a clear majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if funds are used wisely but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like climate crisis and disease control, as long as this argument is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress the mutual advantages 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 work internationally shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can defeat today’s negative, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “others” as long as we champion a optimistic, globally engaged and welcoming patriotism that responds to people’s desire to belong and connects to their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be brought under control – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public are even more concerned about what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. Recently, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome 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 leader also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. Nigel Farage hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not repair struggling areas but damage them, create social division and wreck any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be ill, disabled, needy or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which public service will be the first to be cut or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetarism, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the public are telling us all over the Western world is that they want their governments to rebuild our financial systems and our communities. “The party” and its international partners should be revealed repeatedly for plans that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a case for a better Britain that appeals not just to visionaries, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.