🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his Reform UK 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 leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the United States and South America, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also leading in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, 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. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Austrian 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 far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to overthrow the global legal order, diminish human rights and destroy multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave exposes a new and unavoidable truth that democrats ignore at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has supplanted neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “group priority” and often “my tribe first and only” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism 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 breaches of international human rights law not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

Crucial to grasp the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It begins 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 delayed in addressing to the millions who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, moving us from a unipolar world once led by the United States to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has provoked means open commerce is being replaced by protectionism. Where economics used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies marked out by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by restrictions on cross-border trade, investment and technology transfer, lowering international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism 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 significant portion are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to support international cooperation than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Across the world there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the world's people (even if 25% in the United States currently) who either feel coexistence between ethnic and religious groups is unattainable or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

However there are another 21% at the other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the world's citizens are moderate in views: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “US priority” 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”, adversaries permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle favor a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will back humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

A second group 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%, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a definite majority can be constructed not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like climate crisis and disease control, as long as this argument is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we emphasize 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 each.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and inclusive national pride that responds to people’s need for community and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and it's clear that it must promptly 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 immediate neighborhoods. Last month, a prominent leader gave an emotional speech about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “dysfunctional” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our economy and community.

But as the leader also reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. Nigel Farage praised a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also implement a comparable strategy – what was planned – the largest reductions in public services. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not repair struggling areas but ravage 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 ill, impaired, poor or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which medical facility, which school and which public 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 monetarism, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are indicating all over the west 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 devastate both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be ahead of us, we can go beyond highlighting the party's contradictions by setting out a case for a improved nation that resonates not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the British people.