🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his Reform UK party as a unique occurrence that has exploded on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable historic moment. But this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties like his are also leading in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down yet another French prime minister, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and the legislature. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Italian political group are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, seeking to overthrow the international rule of law, diminish human rights and undermine multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats ignore at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “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 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and this ideology is the driver behind the violations of global human rights standards not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

It is important to understand the root causes, widespread globally, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It starts with a widely felt sense that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system that has not been fair to all.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the shifting dynamics of global economic power, moving us from a unipolar world once dominated by the US to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means open commerce is giving way to trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies marked out by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by bans on cross-border trade, investment and technology transfer, sinking international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens we can find hope in the pragmatism of the world's population. 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 exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to support international cooperation than many of the leaders 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 a quarter in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is unattainable or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the expense 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 free commerce as a positive sum win-win, 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 “US priority” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “our side” and the “them”, opponents always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle favor a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under specific circumstances. A first group, 22%, will back humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of selflessness, supporting disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates empathize of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.

Another segment comprising 22% are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are spent well. And there is a third group, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a definite majority can be constructed not just for humanitarian aid if money is well spent but also for international measures 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 stress the mutual advantages that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long wondered whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the response is both.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can overcome today’s negative, isolated and often forceful and controlling nationalism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we champion a positive, globally engaged and inclusive patriotism that responds to people’s desire to belong and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be managed effectively – the snapshots of opinion 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 spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can drive out what’s bad, 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 economy and community.

However, as the leader also reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. A Reform leader hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also implement a comparable strategy – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in public services. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by £275bn would not fix downtrodden communities but damage them, create social division and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be ill, impaired, needy or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are indicating all over the west is that they want their leaders to rebuild our economies and our civic societies. “The party” and its international partners should be exposed day after day for plans that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our best days 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 idealists, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.