🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his political party as a unique phenomenon that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable historic moment. But this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the United States and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure overthrew the head of government Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down yet another French prime minister, is leading the polls for both the presidential race and parliament. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party is currently the most popular party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Brothers of Italy are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, motivated by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, seeking to overthrow the global legal order, weaken fundamental freedoms and destroy multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats ignore at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has replaced neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “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 this ideology is the driver behind the breaches of global human rights standards not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

It is important to grasp the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalization that was open but not inclusive has been a free for all that has not been fair to all.

Over the past ten years, political figures have not only been slow to respond to the millions who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of global economic power, transitioning from a unipolar world once led by the United States to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means free trade is giving way to trade barriers. Where economics used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies marked out by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on cross-border trade, investment and technology transfer, lowering international cooperation to its weakest point since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can find hope in the pragmatism of the world's population. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing 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 a minority of the global population (even if a quarter 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.

However there are another 21% 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 “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the global public are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. 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 prefer a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or city wall? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A first group, 22%, will back aid efforts to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of selflessness, backing emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and have faith in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment 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 teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a clear majority can be constructed not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we emphasize the mutual advantages 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 cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can overcome current pessimistic, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and welcoming patriotism that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

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 concerned about what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their own local communities. Recently, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly 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 frequently used when asked about both our economy and society.

However, as the leader also reminded us, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. Nigel Farage hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not fix struggling areas but damage them, turn citizen against citizen and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, poor or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which school and which government service will be the first to be cut or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond austerity. What the public are indicating all over the west is that they want their governments to restore our economies and our communities. “Reform” and its global allies 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 Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a argument for a improved nation that resonates not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the British people.