🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a unique phenomenon that has exploded on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable historic moment. However this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the United States and South America, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties like his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is ahead 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, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Italian political group are already in government, 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 anti-internationalists, motivated by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, seeking to dethrone the global legal order, weaken human rights and destroy multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats ignore at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has replaced neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russian primacy”, “my tribe first” 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 ethnic nationalism is the force behind the breaches of global human rights standards not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

Crucial to grasp the root causes, widespread globally, 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 unregulated system that has not been fair 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 changing balance of world economic influence, transitioning from a unipolar world once led by the US to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited 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 protectionist strategies marked out by reshoring and friend-shoring and by bans on cross-border trade, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, lowering global collaboration to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the common sense of the world's population. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to support global teamwork than many of the officials who govern them.

Across the world there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the world's people (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel peaceful living between diverse communities is unattainable or have a win-lose perspective 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 dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders 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

The vast majority of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “others”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or city wall? Yes, under specific circumstances. A first group, 22%, will support aid efforts to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of selflessness, supporting disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists feel the pain of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for international development are used effectively. And there is a final category, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a definite majority can be built 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 argument is argued on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress the reciprocal benefits 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 response is each.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome current pessimistic, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling nationalism that vilifies newcomers, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we champion a optimistic, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that addresses people’s desire to belong and connects to their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be brought under control – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the people are even more concerned about 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 negative, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “dysfunctional” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our economy and society.

However, as the leader also pointed out, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. Nigel Farage praised a disastrous mini-budget 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. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by £275bn would not fix struggling areas but ravage them, create social division and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, needy or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be cut or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the public 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 international partners should be revealed repeatedly for plans that would devastate 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 better Britain that resonates not just to idealists, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.