🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a unique phenomenon that has exploded on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable historic moment. But this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the United States and South America, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also leading in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is leading the polls for both the presidential race and the legislature. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, 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 staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, motivated by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, seeking to overthrow the international rule of law, weaken human rights and destroy multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: 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: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “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 many autocratic states and fewer democratic ones, and ethnic nationalism is the driver behind the violations of international human rights law not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

Crucial to understand the root causes, widespread globally, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalization that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

Over the past ten years, leaders have not only been slow to respond 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 dominated by the United States to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means open commerce is giving way to protectionism. Where economics used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running mercantilist policies marked out by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by bans on cross-border trade, investment and knowledge sharing, sinking global collaboration to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, 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 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to embrace global teamwork than many of the officials who rule over them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group 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 zero-sum mindset that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

But there are another 21% at the opposite extreme, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see international collaboration through free commerce as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

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 devoted to their country 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.

Are most moderates prefer a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A first group, about a fifth, will back humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of selflessness, backing disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists empathize of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are used effectively. And there is a final category, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a clear majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this case is presented 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 wondered whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a need to cooperate, the answer is both.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can defeat current pessimistic, isolated and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, globally engaged and welcoming national pride that addresses people’s desire to belong and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the west, illegal immigration 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 worried by what is happening in their own lives and within their own local communities. Last month, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can overcome 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 economy and society.

However, as the prime minister also reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. A Reform leader hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was intended – the largest reductions in government programs. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not fix struggling areas but ravage them, turn citizen against citizen and wreck any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be ill, disabled, poor or at-risk. Continually from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which public service will be the first to be cut or shut down.

Risks and Solutions

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their leaders to restore our financial systems 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 best days could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out the party's contradictions by setting out a argument for a improved nation that appeals not just to idealists, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.