🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his Reform UK party as a unique occurrence that has exploded on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional historic moment. However this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from India and Thailand to the United States and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties like his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure overthrew the head of government Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is leading the polls for both the presidential race and parliament. 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 power, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, motivated by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, seeking to dethrone the international rule of law, diminish human rights and undermine international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge reveals a recent undeniable reality that democrats overlook at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has replaced neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “group priority” 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 global human rights standards not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Root Causes Explained

Crucial to grasp the root causes, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this new age of nationalism. It starts 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 left out and left behind, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era once dominated 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 incited means open commerce is giving way to trade barriers. Where economics used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies marked out by reshoring and ally-focused trade and by bans on cross-border trade, foreign funding and technology transfer, lowering international cooperation 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 pragmatism of the global public. In a poll conducted for a prominent organization, of 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a significant portion are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to support global teamwork than many of the officials who govern them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the world's people (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 country 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 cooperation across borders through free commerce as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

The vast majority of the world's citizens are moderate in views: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “US priority” 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 “our side” and the “them”, adversaries always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle favor a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or city wall? Yes, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will support humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of altruism, supporting disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” 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 global progress are spent well. And there is a final category, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them basic necessities or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus 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 pandemic prevention, as long as this case 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 need to cooperate, the response is both.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat current pessimistic, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that vilifies newcomers, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we champion a positive, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that responds to people’s desire to belong and connects to their everyday worries.

Tackling Key Issues

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be brought under control – the public sentiment data also tell us that the people are even more worried by what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. Recently, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can drive out what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “broken” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our financial system and society.

However, as the leader also pointed out, 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 biggest ever cuts in public services. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not fix struggling areas but ravage them, create social division and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, poor or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond austerity. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their leaders to rebuild our financial systems and our civic societies. “The party” and its global allies should be exposed day after day for plans that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a argument for a better Britain that appeals not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.