🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his Reform UK party as a distinct phenomenon that has burst on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional epochal event. But this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the US and South America, hard-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-Russian leader a prominent figure overthrew the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and parliament. In Germany, 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 Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, inspired by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, seeking to overthrow the international rule of law, diminish fundamental freedoms and undermine international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats overlook at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “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 ethnic nationalism is the driver behind the violations of international human rights law not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to grasp the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have fuelled this new age of nationalism. It begins 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.

For more than a decade, 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 world economic influence, moving us from a unipolar world once led by the US to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has provoked means free trade is being replaced by protectionism. Where economics used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies characterized by reshoring and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on international commerce, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, lowering international cooperation to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

But all is not lost. The cement is still wet, and even as it hardens we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the world's population. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of thousands of individuals in 34 countries we find a clear majority are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to support global teamwork than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the world's people (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel coexistence 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.

But there are an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through free commerce as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what an influential thinker calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “them”, opponents always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or city wall? Yes, under certain conditions. A first group, 22%, will back humanitarian action to relieve suffering 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 have faith in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for global progress are spent well. And there is a final category, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a clear majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid if funds are used wisely but also for international measures to deal with worldwide issues, like climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we stress 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 answer is both.

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 patriotic extremism that vilifies immigrants, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, outward-looking and inclusive national pride that responds to people’s desire to belong and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, illegal immigration is currently the biggest national issue – and it's clear that it must quickly be managed effectively – the public sentiment data also tell us that the people are even more concerned about what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their own local communities. Last month, 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, “broken” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our financial system and society.

But as the leader also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. Nigel Farage hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since the 1980s. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by £275bn would not repair struggling areas but damage them, create social division and wreck any sense of unity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be ill, impaired, needy or at-risk. Continually from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which public service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. 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 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 pointing out the party's contradictions by presenting a argument for a better Britain that resonates not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.