🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a unique phenomenon that has burst on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable epochal event. However this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the US and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also leading in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party 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 Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, motivated by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, seeking to dethrone the international rule of law, diminish fundamental freedoms and undermine multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave exposes a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy overlook at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has replaced neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” and often “my tribe first and only” 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 force behind the violations of international human rights law not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

Crucial to grasp 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 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 left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of global economic power, moving us from a unipolar world once led by the US to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has provoked means open commerce is being replaced by protectionism. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies marked out by reshoring and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, sinking global collaboration to its weakest point since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

But all is not lost. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the global public. In a poll conducted for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to embrace global teamwork than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the global population (even if 25% in the United States currently) 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 expense of others doing badly.

But there are an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see international collaboration through free commerce as a positive sum win-win, or are what an influential thinker calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

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 never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “them”, adversaries permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle favor a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their local area or community boundaries? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will support aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for international development are spent well. And there is a third group, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse cooperation 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 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 mutual advantages that flow to them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we work together from necessity or if we have a need to cooperate, the response is each.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can defeat current pessimistic, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that demonises immigrants, foreigners and “others” as long as we champion a optimistic, globally engaged and welcoming patriotism that responds to people’s desire to belong and connects to 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 quickly be brought under control – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the public are even more worried by what is happening in their own lives and within their immediate neighborhoods. Recently, the UK Prime Minister gave an emotional speech about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome what’s bad, 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 financial system and community.

However, as the prime minister also reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. A Reform leader praised a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not repair 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 ill, disabled, poor or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which hospital, which school and which public service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond austerity. What the people are indicating all over the west is that they want their leaders to rebuild our economies and our civic societies. “The party” and its global allies should be exposed day after day for plans that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be ahead of us, we can go beyond highlighting the party's contradictions by presenting a argument for a better Britain that resonates not just to visionaries, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the British people.