🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a distinct phenomenon that has burst on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable epochal event. However this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the United States and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also leading in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down 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 government, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, motivated by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, aiming to overthrow the international rule of law, weaken fundamental freedoms and destroy international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge exposes a recent undeniable reality that democrats overlook at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has replaced economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “group priority” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism 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 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.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

It is important to grasp the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, political figures have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the US to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means open commerce is giving way to protectionism. Where market forces used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies characterized by reshoring and ally-focused trade and by bans on cross-border trade, investment and technology transfer, sinking global collaboration to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can find hope in the common sense of the global public. In a poll conducted 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 inclined to embrace international cooperation than many of the officials who govern them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of staunch global cooperation opponents representing 16.5% of the global population (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities 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 dedicated globalists, 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

The vast majority of the global public are moderate in views: 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 “us” and the “others”, opponents always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or community boundaries? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A first group, 22%, will support aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of altruism, backing disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists empathize of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are used effectively. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve 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 definite majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for international measures to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this case is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we emphasize the reciprocal benefits that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long wondered whether we work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the response is each.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can overcome today’s negative, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that vilifies newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we champion a optimistic, outward-looking and inclusive patriotism that responds to people’s need for community and connects to their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be managed effectively – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public are even more concerned about what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their own local communities. Recently, the UK Prime Minister gave an emotional speech about how what’s good about Britain can drive out what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “broken” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our economy and society.

However, as the prime minister also pointed out, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. 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 planned – the largest reductions in public services. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not repair struggling areas but ravage 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, disabled, poor or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, 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 economic theory at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their governments to rebuild our financial systems and our communities. “The party” and its global allies should be exposed repeatedly for policies that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be ahead of us, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a argument for a better Britain that appeals not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.