🔗 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 exceptional epochal event. However this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from India and Thailand to the US and South America, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties like his are also leading in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and parliament. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) 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 Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, motivated by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, seeking to overthrow the global legal order, weaken fundamental freedoms and destroy international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

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 supplanted 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 “my tribe first and only” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism that helps explain why the world is now composed of many autocratic states and fewer democratic ones, 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 one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to understand the root causes, widespread globally, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It starts with a widely felt sense that a globalization that was open but not inclusive has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

Over the past ten years, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel left out and left behind, but also to the changing balance of world economic influence, transitioning 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 nationalist ideology that this has incited means open commerce is being replaced by protectionism. Where market forces used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies marked out by reshoring and friend-shoring and by bans on cross-border trade, foreign funding and technology transfer, lowering 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 solidifies we can find hope in the common sense of the global public. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to support international cooperation than many of the officials who govern them.

Across the world there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the global population (even if 25% in today’s US) 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 cost of others doing badly.

But there are another 21% at the opposite extreme, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what an influential thinker calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the world's citizens 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 “us” and the “them”, adversaries always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or city wall? Yes, under specific circumstances. A first group, 22%, will support humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and have faith in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising 22% are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for global progress are spent well. And there is a final category, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities 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 international measures to deal with global problems, 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 flow to them and their own country. And thus for those who have long wondered 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, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that demonises immigrants, foreigners and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, globally engaged and welcoming national pride that responds to people’s need for community and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, illegal immigration is currently the biggest national issue – and it's clear that it must promptly be brought under control – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public are even more concerned about what is happening in their own lives and within their own local communities. Last month, a prominent leader gave an emotional speech about how what’s good about Britain can drive out 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 society.

However, as the prime minister also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. A Reform leader hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since the 1980s. But he would also implement a comparable strategy – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not repair downtrodden communities but damage them, create social division and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, 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, Reform should be asked which hospital, which school and which government service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are telling us all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to restore our financial systems and our communities. “The party” 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 presenting a case for a improved nation that appeals not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the British people.