🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader depicts his Reform UK party as a distinct occurrence that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional historic moment. But this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the US and South America, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also leading in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is leading the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Brothers of Italy are already in power, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, motivated by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, aiming to dethrone the global legal order, diminish human rights and undermine multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge exposes a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy ignore at our peril: 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: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “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 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and this ideology is the force behind the breaches of global human rights standards not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

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 globalization that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system that has been unjust to all.

Over the past ten years, leaders have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the changing balance of world economic influence, transitioning from a US-dominated era once led by the United States to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means free trade is giving way to protectionism. Where economics used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies characterized by reshoring and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, lowering international cooperation to its weakest point since the post-war period.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can find hope in the pragmatism of the global public. In a poll conducted for a prominent organization, of thousands of individuals in 34 countries we find a clear majority are less receptive 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 small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the world's people (even if a quarter in the United States currently) 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 another 21% at the other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see international collaboration through open trade as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what an influential thinker calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

The vast majority of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “our side” and the “them”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or city wall? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A first group, 22%, will back aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of selflessness, backing disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates 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 public funds for global progress are used effectively. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a clear majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for international measures to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is presented on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we emphasize the mutual advantages that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long wondered whether we work together from necessity or if we have a need to cooperate, the response is both.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that vilifies newcomers, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we champion a optimistic, outward-looking and welcoming patriotism that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be brought under control – 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. Last month, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can drive out what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our financial system and society.

But as the leader also reminded us, the extreme 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 enact a comparable strategy – what was planned – the largest reductions in government programs. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not fix downtrodden communities but damage them, turn citizen against citizen and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, needy or vulnerable. Continually from now on, and in every electoral district, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which school and which public service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetarism, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are telling us all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to rebuild our economies and our communities. “The party” and its international partners should be exposed day after day for policies that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be in the future, we can go beyond highlighting Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a argument for a better Britain that appeals not just to visionaries, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the British people.