🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his Reform UK party as a unique occurrence that has exploded on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional epochal event. However this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the US and South America, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties like his are also leading in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just forced the resignation of 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 leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, motivated by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, seeking to overthrow the international rule of law, diminish fundamental freedoms and undermine international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a recent undeniable reality that democrats overlook at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has replaced economic liberalism as the leading belief system 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 nationalist sentiment that helps explain why the world is now composed of 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and ethnic nationalism is the driver behind the breaches of international human rights law not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

Crucial to grasp the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It starts with a widely felt sense that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system that has not been fair to all.

Over the past ten years, political figures have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel left out and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, transitioning from a US-dominated era once led by the US 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 protectionism. 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 cross-border trade, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, lowering global collaboration to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. 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 prominent organization, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to support global teamwork than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Across the world there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the global population (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 expense of others doing badly.

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

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the world's citizens are moderate in views: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “America first” 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 “our side” and the “others”, adversaries always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates favor a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under certain conditions. A initial segment, about a fifth, will back aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of altruism, supporting disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates empathize of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for international development are spent well. And there is a third group, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a definite majority can be constructed not just for humanitarian aid if funds are used wisely but also for global action to deal with global problems, like climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is argued 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 wondered whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the response is both.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome current pessimistic, isolated and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that demonises newcomers, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we champion a positive, outward-looking and welcoming patriotism that addresses people’s need for community and connects to their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the west, illegal immigration 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 people are even more concerned about what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. Last month, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can drive out what’s negative, 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 financial system and community.

But as the leader also pointed out, the far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. A Reform leader hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was intended – the largest reductions in public services. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not fix downtrodden communities but damage them, turn citizen against citizen and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, needy or vulnerable. Continually from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which public service will be the first to be cut or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their governments to restore our economies and our civic societies. “The party” and its international partners should be revealed day after day for plans that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be ahead of us, 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 British people.