🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his Reform UK party as a distinct occurrence that has burst on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional epochal event. However this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the United States and South America, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another French prime minister, is leading the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In the German nation, 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 hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, weaken fundamental freedoms and destroy multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has replaced economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “group priority” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment 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 international human rights law not just by Russia in Ukraine 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 begins with a widely felt sense that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system 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 marginalized, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, moving us from a unipolar world once led by the United States to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means open commerce is giving way to protectionism. Where economics used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already more than 100 countries are running mercantilist policies marked out by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by bans on cross-border trade, investment and knowledge sharing, lowering international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens we can find hope in the common sense of the global public. In a poll conducted for a prominent organization, of 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a clear majority are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to support international cooperation than many of the leaders who govern them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the global population (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities 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.

However there are another 21% at the other end, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what an influential thinker calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the world's citizens are moderate in views: not isolated patriots, as “US priority” 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 “them”, adversaries always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates favor a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under specific circumstances. A initial segment, 22%, will support aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of selflessness, supporting emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for global progress are spent well. And there is a third group, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse 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.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a definite majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if funds are used wisely but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this argument is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we stress the reciprocal benefits that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long wondered whether we work together from necessity or if we have a need to cooperate, the response is each.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can defeat today’s negative, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling nationalism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we champion a positive, outward-looking and inclusive national pride that responds to people’s need for community and connects to their everyday worries.

Tackling Key Issues

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the top concern – 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 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 negative, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “dysfunctional” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our economy and society.

However, as the prime minister also reminded us, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. Nigel Farage praised a disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the largest reductions in government programs. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not fix struggling areas but damage them, turn citizen against citizen and destroy any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be ill, impaired, needy or at-risk. Continually from now on, and in every constituency, 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 spiteful far beyond austerity. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their governments to rebuild our economies and our communities. “Reform” and its international partners should be revealed day after day for plans 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 better Britain that appeals not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.