🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his Reform UK party as a unique occurrence that has burst on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable historic moment. But this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from India and Thailand to the US and South America, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also leading in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is leading the polls for both the French presidency and the legislature. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the leading party. A Hungarian political force, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Italian political group are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, inspired by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, diminish fundamental freedoms and undermine international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge reveals a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy ignore at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has replaced economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “group priority” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism 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 global human rights standards not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to understand the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. It starts with a widely felt sense that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a unregulated system that has not been fair to all.

Over the past ten years, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the millions who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the United States to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, 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 protectionism. Where market forces used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies marked out by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by bans on international commerce, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, lowering international cooperation to its weakest point since the post-war period.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the global public. In a poll conducted for a major foundation, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to embrace international cooperation than many of the officials who govern them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of staunch global cooperation opponents representing 16.5% of the world's people (even if 25% in the United States currently) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is impossible or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

But there are an additional group at the other end, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see international collaboration through open trade as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the global public are moderate in views: not isolated patriots, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “others”, opponents always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle favor a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A first group, about a fifth, will support aid efforts to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates empathize of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are used effectively. And there is a final category, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a definite majority can be constructed not just for humanitarian aid if money is well spent 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 wise personal benefit, and if we stress the reciprocal benefits that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the response is each.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome current pessimistic, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that demonises immigrants, outsiders and “different groups” 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 everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be brought under control – the public sentiment data also tell us that the people are even more concerned about what is happening in their own lives and within their own local communities. Last month, the UK Prime Minister gave an emotional speech about how what’s good about Britain can drive out what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “broken” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our financial system and community.

However, as the leader also reminded us, the far 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 1986. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was intended – the largest reductions in government programs. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by £275bn would not fix struggling areas but damage them, turn citizen against citizen and destroy any sense of unity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, poor or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be cut or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond austerity. What the public are indicating all over the west is that they want their leaders to rebuild our financial systems and our communities. “Reform” and its international partners should be exposed day after day for plans that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be in the future, we can go beyond highlighting the party's contradictions by setting out a argument for a better Britain that appeals not just to idealists, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.