🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his Reform UK party as a distinct phenomenon that has burst on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional epochal event. But this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties like his are also leading in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is leading the polls for both the presidential race and parliament. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in power, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, motivated by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, seeking to dethrone the international rule of law, diminish fundamental freedoms and destroy international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge exposes a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy ignore at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “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 many autocratic states and fewer democratic ones, and this ideology is the force behind the breaches of global human rights standards not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to understand the root causes, common to almost every country, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system 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 marginalized, but also to the shifting dynamics of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the US to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has provoked means free trade is being replaced by protectionism. Where market forces used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies characterized by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by bans on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, 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 hardens we can see optimism in the common sense of the global public. In a poll conducted for a prominent organization, of thousands of individuals in 34 countries we find a significant portion are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to embrace global teamwork than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the world's people (even if a quarter in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between diverse communities is unattainable or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

However there are another 21% at the other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

The vast majority of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, 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 never-ending struggle between the “our side” and the “them”, opponents always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or city wall? Yes, under specific circumstances. A first group, 22%, will support humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of altruism, backing disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates empathize of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are used effectively. And there is a final category, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a definite majority can be constructed not just for humanitarian aid if funds are used wisely but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like climate crisis and disease control, as long as this case is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we emphasize 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.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can overcome current pessimistic, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that demonises immigrants, foreigners and “others” as long as we champion a positive, globally engaged and inclusive patriotism that responds to people’s need for community and resonates with their everyday worries.

Tackling Key Issues

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, 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 personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. Recently, the UK Prime Minister gave an emotional speech about how what’s good about Britain can drive out what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “dysfunctional” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our economy and community.

However, as the leader also pointed out, the far right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. Nigel Farage hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in public services. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not repair struggling areas but damage them, create social division and destroy any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be ill, disabled, poor or vulnerable. Continually from now on, and in every electoral district, Reform should be asked which hospital, which educational institution 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 monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are telling us all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to restore our economies and our communities. “The party” and its international partners should be exposed day after day for plans that would harm 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 argument for a improved nation that resonates not just to idealists, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the British people.