🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader depicts his political party as a unique occurrence that has burst on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable epochal event. But this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from India and Thailand to the US and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigrant, 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 overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, 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. A Hungarian political force, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition 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 international coalition of anti-internationalists, motivated by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, diminish fundamental freedoms and destroy multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge exposes a new and unavoidable truth that democrats overlook at great risk: 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 priorities: “America first”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russian primacy”, “group priority” 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 breaches of international human rights law not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to understand the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It starts with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a unregulated system that has been unjust to all.

Over the past ten years, leaders have not only been delayed in addressing to the millions who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of global economic power, transitioning from a unipolar world once led by the United States to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means free trade is giving way to protectionism. Where market forces used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies marked out by reshoring and friend-shoring and by bans on international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, sinking international cooperation 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 pragmatism of the global public. In a recent survey for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in 34 countries we find a clear majority are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to embrace international cooperation than many of the officials who rule over them.

Across the world there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the global population (even if 25% in the United States currently) 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 expense 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 positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the global public are moderate in views: not isolated patriots, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “them”, opponents always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Are most moderates favor a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will support aid efforts to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists feel the pain of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are used effectively. And there is a third group, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them basic necessities or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a definite majority can be constructed not just for emergency assistance if funds are used wisely but also for international measures to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is argued on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress the reciprocal benefits 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 response is both.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that demonises newcomers, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we champion a positive, outward-looking and inclusive patriotism that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be managed effectively – the public sentiment data 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 spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain 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 frequently used when asked about both our economy and community.

However, as the leader also pointed out, the far right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. Nigel Farage hailed 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 reduce public spending by a huge sum would not repair downtrodden communities but ravage them, create social division and destroy any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, 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 hospital, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

Risks and Solutions

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are indicating all over the west is that they want their governments to restore our economies and our communities. “The party” and its global allies should be revealed repeatedly for policies that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be in the future, we can go beyond highlighting the party's contradictions by setting out a case for a better Britain that appeals not just to idealists, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the British people.