🔗 Share this article

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

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure overthrew 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 French presidency and parliament. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, inspired by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, diminish human rights and undermine multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge exposes a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has replaced neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “my tribe first” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment that helps explain why the world is now composed of many autocratic states and fewer democratic ones, and ethnic nationalism is the force behind the violations of global human rights standards 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 grasp the root causes, widespread globally, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the millions who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, transitioning from a unipolar world once dominated by the US to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means open commerce is being replaced by trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies marked out by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by restrictions on international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, lowering global collaboration to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The situation is not fixed, and even as it solidifies we can find hope in the common sense of the global public. In a poll conducted for a prominent organization, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to embrace global teamwork than many of the officials who rule over them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the global population (even if 25% in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups is unattainable 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.

However there are an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through free commerce as a positive sum win-win, or are what an influential thinker calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “America first” 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”, adversaries permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will back humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of selflessness, supporting emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists feel the pain 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 global progress are spent well. And there is a third group, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a clear majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this case is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we emphasize the mutual advantages that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we work together from necessity or if we have a need to cooperate, the response is both.

This willingness 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 patriotic extremism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, outward-looking and welcoming national pride that responds to people’s desire to belong and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry 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 worried by what is happening in their own lives and within their immediate neighborhoods. Recently, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can drive out what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our economy and society.

But as the leader also pointed out, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. Nigel Farage praised a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was planned – the largest reductions in government programs. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by £275bn would not repair struggling areas but ravage them, create social division and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, needy or vulnerable. Continually from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which school and which public service will be the first to be cut or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” 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 west is that they want their leaders to rebuild our financial systems and our civic societies. “Reform” and its international partners should be exposed day after day 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 pointing out the party's contradictions by setting out a argument for a improved nation that appeals not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.