🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his Reform UK party as a unique occurrence that has exploded on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional historic moment. But 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-immigration, anti-globalisation parties like his are also leading in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš toppled prime minister 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 presidential race and parliament. In Germany, 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 Austrian 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 like Steve Bannon, aiming to overthrow the international rule of law, weaken human rights and destroy international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy overlook at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has replaced neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “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 force behind the breaches 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 understand the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. 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.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel left out and marginalized, but also to the shifting dynamics of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the US to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means open commerce is being replaced by protectionism. 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 reshoring and friend-shoring and by restrictions on international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, sinking global collaboration to its weakest point since the post-war period.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the common sense of the world's population. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a clear majority are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to support international cooperation than many of the leaders who govern them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the global population (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel peaceful living between diverse communities is impossible or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

However there are an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what an influential thinker calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority of the world's citizens are moderate in views: not isolated patriots, as “America first” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “our side” and the “others”, adversaries permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates favor a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Yes, under certain conditions. A initial segment, about a fifth, will back humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of selflessness, backing emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are used effectively. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a definite majority can be constructed not just for humanitarian aid 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 presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress the mutual advantages that benefit 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.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling nationalism that demonises immigrants, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a positive, globally engaged and inclusive patriotism that addresses people’s desire to belong and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, illegal immigration is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be managed effectively – 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 immediate neighborhoods. Recently, a prominent leader gave an emotional speech about how what’s good about Britain can overcome what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “broken” and “deteriorating” 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 exploiting grievances than ending them. A Reform leader praised a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not fix struggling areas but damage them, create social division and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be ill, impaired, poor or at-risk. Continually from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be cut or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetarism, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their governments to rebuild our financial systems and our civic societies. “The party” and its international partners should be revealed repeatedly 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 Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a case 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.