🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his Reform UK party as a distinct phenomenon that has burst on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional epochal event. But this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the US and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also ahead in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure overthrew the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down 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 most popular party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Italian political group are already in power, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, seeking to overthrow the global legal order, weaken fundamental freedoms and undermine international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave exposes a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has supplanted neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “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 force 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

It is important to grasp the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this new age of nationalism. It starts with a broadly shared perception that a globalization that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, moving us from a unipolar world once led by the United States to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means free trade is giving way to trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies characterized by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by bans on international commerce, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, sinking global collaboration to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, 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 dozens of nations we find a clear majority are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to support international cooperation than many of the leaders who govern them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of staunch global cooperation opponents representing 16.5% of the global population (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel peaceful living between diverse communities 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.

However there are another 21% at the opposite extreme, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through free commerce 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 “America first” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “our side” and the “others”, adversaries always divided 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 responsibilities beyond their local area or city wall? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A first group, about a fifth, will support humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of selflessness, backing disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists feel the pain of others and have faith in something larger than their own interests.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for global progress are spent well. And there is a third group, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a definite majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if funds are used wisely but also for global action to deal with global problems, like climate crisis 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 wondered whether we work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the response is both.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, globally engaged and inclusive patriotism 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, unauthorized entry 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 own lives and within their immediate neighborhoods. Recently, a prominent leader gave an emotional speech about how what’s good about Britain can overcome what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “dysfunctional” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our financial system and society.

But as the leader also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. Nigel Farage praised a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in public services. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not repair downtrodden communities but ravage them, turn citizen against citizen and destroy any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, poor or at-risk. Continually from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which public service will be the first to be cut or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are indicating all over the west is that they want their leaders to rebuild our economies and our civic societies. “Reform” and its international partners should be revealed 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 case for a better Britain that appeals not just to idealists, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.