🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a distinct phenomenon that has burst on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable epochal event. But this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the United States and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also leading in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader 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 far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, inspired by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, seeking to dethrone the international rule of law, weaken human rights and undermine international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats overlook at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has replaced economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “group priority” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment that helps explain why the world is now composed of 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and ethnic nationalism is the driver behind the violations 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

Crucial to grasp the root causes, common to almost every country, that have fuelled 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 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 world economic influence, moving us from a US-dominated era once dominated by the US 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 being replaced by protectionism. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies characterized by reshoring and friend-shoring and by restrictions on cross-border trade, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, lowering international cooperation to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens we can find hope in the pragmatism of the global public. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of thousands of individuals 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 small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the world's people (even if 25% in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between diverse communities is impossible or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the cost 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 “rooted cosmopolitans”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the global public are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, as “America first” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are devoted to their country 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 favor a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A initial segment, 22%, will back aid efforts to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of selflessness, supporting emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists feel the pain of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

A second group 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 approve cooperation if they can see that it benefits 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 global problems, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, 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 wondered whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the answer is each.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that vilifies newcomers, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we champion a optimistic, globally engaged and welcoming patriotism that addresses people’s desire to belong and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and it's clear that it must quickly 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. Recently, the UK Prime Minister gave an emotional speech about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our financial system and community.

But as the prime minister also pointed out, the far right is more interested in using complaints 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 largest reductions in public services. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not fix downtrodden communities 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, needy or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which medical facility, which school and which public service will be the first to be cut or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetarism, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the public are telling us all over the west is that they want their leaders to restore our economies and our civic societies. “Reform” and its international partners 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 pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a case for a improved nation that appeals not just to visionaries, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.