🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his Reform UK party as a distinct occurrence that has exploded on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional historic moment. However this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from India and Thailand to the US and Argentina, far-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 Andrej Babiš toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and the legislature. In the German nation, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the leading party. A Hungarian political force, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Italian political group are already in power, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, inspired by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, aiming to overthrow the global legal order, diminish human rights and undermine international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats overlook at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russian primacy”, “my tribe first” 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 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.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

It is important to understand the root causes, common to almost every country, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It begins with a widely felt sense that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

Over the past ten years, leaders have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, moving us from a unipolar world once led by the US to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means free trade is being replaced by protectionism. Where economics used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving economic decisions, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies characterized by reshoring and friend-shoring and by restrictions on cross-border trade, investment and technology transfer, lowering international cooperation to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can find hope in the pragmatism of the global public. In a recent survey for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to embrace international cooperation than many of the officials who govern them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the world's people (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between ethnic and religious groups is unattainable or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

However there are an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see international collaboration through free commerce as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, 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 “us” and the “them”, opponents always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will back aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of selflessness, backing emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates empathize 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 global progress are used effectively. And there is a third group, 21%, 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 peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a clear majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid if money is well spent but also for international measures to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this case is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, 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 need to cooperate, the response is both.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat current pessimistic, isolated and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that vilifies newcomers, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we champion a positive, globally engaged and inclusive patriotism that responds to people’s desire to belong and connects to their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be managed effectively – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public 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 overcome what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our economy and community.

But as the prime minister also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. Nigel Farage hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the largest reductions in public services. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not fix struggling areas but damage them, create social division and destroy any sense of unity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, needy or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which hospital, which school and which public service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetarism, and spiteful 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 revealed repeatedly for policies that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be in the future, we can go beyond highlighting Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a case for a improved nation that resonates not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.