🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his Reform UK party as a distinct occurrence that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable historic moment. However this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from India and Thailand to the United States and South America, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties like his are also leading in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, 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. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Italian political group are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, motivated by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to overthrow the global legal order, weaken fundamental freedoms and undermine multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats ignore at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “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 ethnic nationalism is the driver 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

It is important to understand the root causes, common to almost every country, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a unregulated system that has not been fair to all.

Over the past ten years, political figures have not only been slow to respond to the millions who feel left out and left behind, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era once dominated by the United States to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means free trade is giving way to trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies marked out by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, lowering global collaboration to its weakest point since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

But all is not lost. The cement is still wet, and even as it hardens we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the world's population. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to support global teamwork than many of the leaders who govern them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing 16.5% of the world's people (even if 25% in today’s US) 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 expense of others doing badly.

However there are another 21% at the opposite extreme, 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 “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the global public are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “our side” and the “others”, opponents permanently set apart 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 initial segment, about a fifth, will support humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of selflessness, backing disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists empathize of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising 22% are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for international development are spent well. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a clear majority can be constructed not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent 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 enlightened self-interest, and if we stress the mutual advantages that benefit 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 turn back the xenophobic tide: we can overcome current pessimistic, isolated and often forceful and controlling nationalism that vilifies immigrants, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be brought under control – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the public are even more concerned about what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. Recently, a prominent leader gave an emotional speech about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “broken” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our financial system and society.

But as the prime minister also pointed out, the far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. A Reform leader praised a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not fix struggling areas but ravage them, create social division and destroy any sense of unity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be ill, impaired, needy or at-risk. Continually from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond austerity. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their leaders to restore our economies and our communities. “Reform” and its global allies should be revealed repeatedly for plans that would harm 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 setting out a argument for a better Britain that appeals not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.