🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his Reform UK party as a distinct phenomenon that has exploded on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable historic moment. But this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the US and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties like his are also leading in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure overthrew the head of government 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 French presidency and the legislature. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party is currently the most popular party. A Hungarian political force, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Italian political group are already in government, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, motivated by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to overthrow the global legal order, weaken human rights and destroy international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge reveals a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has supplanted economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment that helps explain why the world is now composed of many autocratic states and fewer democratic ones, and this ideology is the force behind the breaches of international human rights law not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

Crucial to grasp the underlying forces, common to almost every country, 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.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel left out and marginalized, but also to the changing balance of world economic influence, transitioning from a unipolar world once dominated by the US to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means free trade is giving way to trade barriers. 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 ally-focused trade and by bans on cross-border trade, investment and knowledge sharing, lowering global collaboration to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the world's population. In a recent survey for a major foundation, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to embrace international cooperation than many of the officials who rule over them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, 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 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 another 21% at the other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the global public are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “our side” and the “them”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates prefer a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A first group, about a fifth, will support aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of altruism, backing emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any taxes paid 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 benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a clear majority can be constructed not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this case is presented on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we emphasize 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 necessity for collaboration, the answer is each.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome current pessimistic, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, globally engaged and welcoming patriotism that addresses people’s desire to belong and connects to their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry 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 people 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 drive out what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “dysfunctional” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most commonly cited 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 disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was planned – the largest reductions in government programs. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by £275bn would not fix struggling areas but damage them, create social division and wreck any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be ill, impaired, poor or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which school and which government service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to rebuild our financial systems and our communities. “The party” and its global allies should be exposed repeatedly for plans 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 the party's contradictions by setting out a case for a better Britain that resonates not just to visionaries, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.