🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his Reform UK party as a distinct occurrence that has burst on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable historic moment. But this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the United States and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure overthrew prime minister 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 parliament. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, diminish human rights and destroy multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave exposes a recent undeniable reality that democrats overlook at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has supplanted neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism that helps explain why the world is now composed of 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and ethnic nationalism is the driver 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.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to understand the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It starts with a widely felt sense that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has not been fair to all.

For more than a decade, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of global economic power, transitioning from a unipolar world once dominated by the US to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means free trade is being replaced by trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies characterized by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by bans on cross-border trade, foreign funding and technology transfer, sinking international cooperation 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 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a clear majority are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to embrace global teamwork than many of the officials who govern them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing 16.5% of the world's people (even if 25% in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups is impossible 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 an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see international collaboration through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the global public are somewhere in between: 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 never-ending struggle between the “our side” and the “them”, opponents 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 prepared to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Yes, under specific circumstances. A first group, about a fifth, will back humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of altruism, backing disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists empathize of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

A second group comprising 22% are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are spent well. And there is a final category, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse 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.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a definite majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid if funds are used wisely 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 enlightened self-interest, and if we stress the reciprocal benefits 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.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we champion a optimistic, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be brought under control – 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 own local communities. Recently, the UK Prime Minister gave an emotional speech about how what’s positive in the nation can drive out what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “dysfunctional” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our financial system and society.

But as the prime minister also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. A Reform leader praised a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in public services. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by £275bn 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 ill, impaired, needy or vulnerable. Continually from now on, and in every electoral district, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which government 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 vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their leaders to rebuild our economies and our civic societies. “The party” 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 presenting a argument for a improved nation that appeals not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.