🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader depicts his political party as a distinct phenomenon that has exploded on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable historic moment. However this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the US and South America, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, 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, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, inspired by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, seeking to overthrow the global legal order, weaken human rights and destroy international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats ignore at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “group priority” and often “exclusive group focus” 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 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 grasp the root causes, common to almost every country, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It starts 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.

Over the past ten years, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel left out 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 rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has incited 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 more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies marked out by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on cross-border trade, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, sinking 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 solidifies we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the world's population. In a recent survey for a major foundation, of 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a significant portion are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to embrace international cooperation than many of the officials who rule over them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the global population (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel peaceful living 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 cost of others doing badly.

But there are an additional group at the other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority of the global public are moderate in views: not isolated patriots, 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 “our side” and the “others”, opponents always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Are most moderates prefer 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 first group, about a fifth, will back aid efforts to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of selflessness, supporting emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates empathize of others and have faith in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for global progress are used effectively. And there is a third group, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring 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 environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument 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 wondered whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a need to cooperate, the answer is both.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can defeat current pessimistic, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that vilifies immigrants, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, globally engaged and welcoming patriotism that addresses people’s need for community and connects to 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 managed effectively – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the public are even more worried by what is happening in their own lives and within their immediate neighborhoods. Recently, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can overcome what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “dysfunctional” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our economy and community.

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 “an excellent fiscal policy” 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 £275bn would not repair struggling areas but damage them, turn citizen against citizen and destroy any sense of unity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, poor or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which government 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 harmful even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are indicating all over the west is that they want their governments to restore our economies and our communities. “The party” and its international partners should be exposed 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 pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a case for a improved nation that resonates not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.