🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his Reform UK party as a unique phenomenon that has exploded on to the global 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 Southeast Asia to the US and South America, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš overthrew the head of government Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down yet another French prime minister, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency and the legislature. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, motivated by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, aiming to overthrow the global legal order, weaken fundamental freedoms and undermine multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats ignore at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has replaced economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “Chinese emphasis”, “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 many autocratic states and fewer democratic ones, and ethnic nationalism is the force behind the violations of international human rights law not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to understand the root causes, common to almost every country, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system that has not been fair to all.

For more than a decade, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, transitioning 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 nationalist ideology that this has incited means free trade is being replaced by protectionism. Where economics used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies characterized by reshoring and friend-shoring and by bans on cross-border trade, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, lowering global collaboration to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens we can see optimism in the common sense of the world's population. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of thousands of individuals in 34 countries we find a clear majority are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism 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 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 peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups is unattainable 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 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 “rooted cosmopolitans”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “America first” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “our side” and the “them”, adversaries always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or community boundaries? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A first group, about a fifth, will support aid efforts to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of selflessness, backing disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists 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 spent well. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a definite majority can be built not just for emergency assistance 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 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 answer is each.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, globally engaged and inclusive patriotism that addresses people’s desire to belong and connects to their everyday worries.

Tackling Key Issues

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be brought under control – 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 own local communities. Last month, 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 “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 reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. A Reform leader praised a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was intended – the largest reductions in public services. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by £275bn would not fix downtrodden communities but ravage them, turn citizen against citizen and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, needy or vulnerable. Continually from now on, and in every electoral district, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which school and which public service will be the first to be cut or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetarism, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are indicating all over the west is that they want their leaders to restore our economies and our communities. “Reform” and its global allies should be exposed day after day for policies that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be ahead of us, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a argument for a better Britain that appeals not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the British people.