🔗 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 epochal event. However this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from India and Thailand to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also leading in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is leading the polls for both the French presidency and the legislature. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the leading party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in power, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, seeking to overthrow the global legal order, weaken fundamental freedoms and undermine international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge exposes a new and unavoidable truth that democrats overlook at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has supplanted neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “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 instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to understand 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 accessible yet exclusionary has been a unregulated system that has been unjust to all.

Over the past ten years, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel left out and marginalized, but also to the changing balance of world economic influence, transitioning from a unipolar world once led by the United States to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means open commerce is being replaced by trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running mercantilist policies characterized by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by restrictions on international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, sinking global collaboration to its weakest point since the post-war period.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens we can see optimism in the common sense of the world's population. In a poll conducted 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 embrace global teamwork 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 world's people (even if 25% in the United States currently) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is impossible or have a win-lose perspective 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 dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what an influential thinker calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

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 fully global citizens. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “others”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates favor a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under certain conditions. A first group, about a fifth, will back humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates empathize of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising 22% are practical cooperators 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 approve teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a clear majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we emphasize 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 necessity for collaboration, the response is both.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can overcome current pessimistic, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that vilifies immigrants, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, globally engaged and inclusive patriotism that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be brought under control – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the people are even more worried by what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their own local communities. Last month, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can drive out what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our financial system and community.

But as the prime minister also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. Nigel Farage praised a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in public services. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by £275bn would not fix downtrodden communities 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 sick, disabled, poor 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 reduced or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to restore our economies and our civic societies. “Reform” and its global allies should be revealed repeatedly for plans that would harm 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 presenting a case for a better Britain that appeals not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.