🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a unique occurrence that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional historic moment. However this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the US and South America, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties like his are also ahead in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, is leading the polls for both the presidential race and the legislature. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Italian political group are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, inspired by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, seeking to dethrone the international rule of law, diminish human rights and destroy multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave exposes a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy ignore at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled 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”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “group priority” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism that helps explain why the world is now composed of many autocratic states and fewer democratic ones, and ethnic nationalism is the force behind the breaches of international human rights law not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Root Causes Explained

Crucial to grasp the underlying forces, 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 open but not inclusive 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 United States to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means open commerce is giving way to protectionism. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies marked out by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on cross-border trade, investment and technology transfer, sinking global collaboration to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. 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 major foundation, of 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a significant portion are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to support global teamwork than many of the officials who rule over them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the global population (even if a quarter in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between diverse communities is impossible or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

But 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 a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the global public are moderate in views: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “America first” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “us” and the “them”, opponents always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates prefer a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their local area or city wall? Yes, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will support humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of selflessness, supporting emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists empathize of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are spent well. And there is a final category, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a clear majority can be constructed not just for humanitarian aid if funds are used wisely but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this case is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we emphasize the mutual advantages that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we work together from necessity or if we have a need to cooperate, the response is each.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can defeat current pessimistic, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “others” as long as we champion a positive, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that responds to people’s need for community and connects to their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be brought under control – the public sentiment data also tell us that the people are even more worried by what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their own local communities. Last month, 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 developed nations, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our financial system and society.

But as the leader also pointed out, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. 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 planned – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not fix struggling areas but damage them, turn citizen against citizen and wreck any sense of unity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be ill, disabled, poor or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, Reform should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be cut or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetarism, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to restore our economies and our communities. “The party” and its international partners should be revealed repeatedly for policies that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be ahead of us, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a argument for a improved nation that resonates not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.