🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his Reform UK party as a unique phenomenon that has burst on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional epochal event. But this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from India and Thailand to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties like his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is leading the polls for both the presidential race and parliament. In the German nation, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) 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 Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, aiming to dethrone the global legal order, diminish human rights and destroy multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats overlook at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has supplanted neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “India first”, “China first”, “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 instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

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

For more than a decade, political figures have not only been slow to respond to the millions who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, transitioning from a US-dominated era once dominated by the United States 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 provoked means open commerce is being replaced by trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies characterized by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by bans on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, lowering global collaboration to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The cement is still wet, 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 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a clear majority are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to embrace international cooperation than many of the officials who rule over them.

Across the world there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing 16.5% of the global population (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups 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 opposite extreme, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through free commerce as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the global public 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 never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “them”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates prefer a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their local area or city wall? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A first group, 22%, will support humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists empathize of others and have faith in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for international development are used effectively. And there is a final category, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a clear majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is argued on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we emphasize 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 necessity for collaboration, the response is each.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat current pessimistic, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that vilifies newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, illegal immigration is currently the biggest national issue – and it's clear that it must promptly be managed effectively – the snapshots of opinion 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 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 economy and community.

But as the leader also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. A Reform leader praised a disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was intended – the largest reductions in government programs. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by £275bn would not repair downtrodden communities but damage them, create social division and wreck any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, needy or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which public service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are telling us all over the Western world is that they want their governments to rebuild our economies and our civic societies. “Reform” 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 in the future, we can go beyond highlighting Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a argument for a better Britain that resonates not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.