🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his Reform UK party as a unique phenomenon that has burst on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional historic moment. However this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the US and South America, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also leading in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency and the legislature. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party is currently the most popular party. A Hungarian political force, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Italian political group are already in government, while the Freedom party of Austria (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 such as a well-known figure, aiming to overthrow the international rule of law, diminish human rights and destroy international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a recent undeniable reality that democrats ignore at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has replaced economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” and often “my tribe first and only” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment that helps explain why the world is now composed of 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and this ideology 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 new age of nationalism. It begins with a widely felt sense that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive has been a free for all that has not been fair to all.

For more than a decade, leaders 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 US-dominated era once led 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 provoked means open commerce is giving way to trade barriers. Where economics used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies characterized by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by bans on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, lowering global collaboration to its weakest point since the post-war period.

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 major foundation, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to embrace international cooperation than many of the leaders who govern them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of staunch global cooperation opponents representing 16.5% of the global population (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between ethnic and religious groups is unattainable or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

But there are an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see international collaboration 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

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 patriotic but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “our side” 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 obligations beyond their local area or city wall? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A first group, about a fifth, will back humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of selflessness, backing disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists feel the pain of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for global progress are spent well. And there is a final category, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a definite majority can be constructed not just for humanitarian aid 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 argument is argued on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress the mutual advantages that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a need to cooperate, the response is each.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that responds to people’s desire to belong and connects to their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be managed effectively – the snapshots of opinion 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 spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome what’s bad, 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 community.

But as the leader also pointed out, the far right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. Nigel Farage praised a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. But he would also implement a comparable strategy – what was planned – the largest reductions in government programs. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not fix struggling areas 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 ill, impaired, poor or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which hospital, 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 harmful even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the public are telling us all over the west is that they want their leaders to rebuild our financial systems and our civic societies. “The party” and its global allies should be revealed day after day 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 better Britain that resonates not just to idealists, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the British people.