🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader depicts his political party as a unique phenomenon that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional historic moment. However this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from India and Thailand to the United States and South America, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties like his are also leading in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure toppled 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 the legislature. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party is currently the most popular party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Italian political group are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, 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 supporters of democracy ignore at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “India first”, “China first”, “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 ethnic nationalism is the driver behind the violations of global human rights standards not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Root Causes Explained

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

Over the past ten years, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel left out and left behind, 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 competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means open commerce is giving way to 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 characterized by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on cross-border trade, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, lowering global collaboration to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

But all is not lost. The cement is still wet, and even as it hardens we can find hope in the common sense of the global public. In a recent survey for a major foundation, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to embrace international cooperation than many of the officials who govern them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number 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 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 cost of others doing badly.

But 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 positive sum win-win, or are what an influential thinker calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority of the global public are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, as “America first” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are devoted to their country 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 willing to accept obligations beyond their local area or community boundaries? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will back aid efforts to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of selflessness, backing disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists feel the pain of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for global progress are spent well. And there is a final category, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a definite majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for international measures to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we stress 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 need to cooperate, the response is each.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, globally engaged and welcoming patriotism that addresses people’s desire to belong and connects to their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and it's clear that it must promptly be managed effectively – the public sentiment data also tell us that the people are even more concerned about what is happening in their own lives and within their immediate neighborhoods. Recently, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “dysfunctional” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our economy and community.

However, as the prime minister also reminded us, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. A Reform leader hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since the 1980s. But he would also implement a comparable strategy – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not fix downtrodden communities but damage them, turn citizen against citizen and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be ill, disabled, needy or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which hospital, which school and which government service will be the first to be cut or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetarism, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are indicating 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 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 setting out a argument for a improved nation that resonates not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.