🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his Reform UK party as a distinct occurrence that has burst on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable epochal event. But this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from India and Thailand to the US and South America, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also leading in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, is leading the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In the German nation, 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 Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, inspired by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, aiming to overthrow the international rule of law, diminish fundamental freedoms and undermine international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge exposes a new and unavoidable truth that democrats overlook at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted economic liberalism as the dominant ideology 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 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and this ideology is the driver behind the breaches of international human rights law not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

Crucial to understand the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It begins with a widely felt sense that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has not been fair to all.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been delayed in addressing to the millions who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, transitioning from a unipolar world once led by the United States to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means free trade is being replaced by trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving economic decisions, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies marked out by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by restrictions on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, sinking global collaboration to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

But all is not lost. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens we can find hope in the pragmatism of the world's population. In a poll conducted for a major foundation, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to embrace global teamwork than many of the leaders who govern them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing 16.5% of the world's people (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is unattainable or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their nation 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 international collaboration through open trade as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what an influential thinker calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

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 devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “them”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their local area or city wall? Yes, under specific circumstances. A first group, about a fifth, will support aid efforts to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists feel the pain of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.

Another segment comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for international development are spent well. And there is a final category, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a clear majority can be constructed not just for humanitarian aid if money is well spent but also for international measures to deal with worldwide issues, like climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress the reciprocal benefits that flow to them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the answer is both.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that responds to people’s need for community and connects to their everyday worries.

Tackling Key Issues

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and it's clear 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 own local communities. Recently, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can drive out 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 financial system and community.

But as the leader also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. Nigel Farage praised a disastrous mini-budget 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. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not fix downtrodden communities but ravage them, turn citizen against citizen and destroy any sense of unity. 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 constituency, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which public service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their governments to rebuild our economies and our communities. “Reform” and its international partners should be revealed day after day for policies that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be in the future, we can go beyond highlighting Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a argument for a improved nation that appeals not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.