🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader depicts 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 the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the United States and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, 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 the legislature. In the German nation, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Italian political group are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, inspired by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, diminish human rights and undermine international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave exposes a recent undeniable reality that democrats overlook at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has supplanted economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “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 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, 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.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to understand the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has not been fair to all.

Over the past ten years, leaders 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, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the US to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means open commerce is giving way to protectionism. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already more than 100 countries are running mercantilist policies characterized by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by bans on international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, lowering international cooperation to its weakest point since the post-war period.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the world's population. In a poll conducted 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 willing to support global teamwork than many of the officials who govern them.

Across the world there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the global population (even if 25% in the United States currently) who either feel coexistence between ethnic and religious groups is impossible or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

However there are another 21% at the opposite extreme, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through free commerce as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what a prominent philosopher 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 all-in cosmopolitans. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “our side” and the “others”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle favor a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A first group, 22%, will back aid efforts to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of selflessness, supporting disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

A second group comprising 22% are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for international development are used effectively. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a clear 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 climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is presented on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we emphasize 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 answer is both.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can overcome today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that vilifies immigrants, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that addresses people’s desire to belong and resonates with their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry 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 worried by what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. Recently, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation 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.

But as the prime minister also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. Nigel Farage praised a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not repair struggling areas but damage them, create social division and destroy any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, poor or vulnerable. Continually from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which medical facility, which school and which government service will be the first to be cut or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their governments to restore our economies and our communities. “Reform” and its international partners should be exposed day after day for policies that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be ahead of us, we can go beyond pointing out the party's contradictions by presenting a case for a improved nation that resonates not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the British people.