🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his political party as a distinct occurrence that has burst on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable historic moment. But this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from India and Thailand to the US and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties like his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, 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, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, motivated by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, seeking to dethrone the global legal order, weaken human rights and undermine international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: 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”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism that helps explain why the world is now composed of many autocratic states and fewer democratic ones, and this ideology is the driver 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.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

Crucial to understand the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have driven 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 slow to respond to the many people who feel left out and left behind, but also to the changing balance of world economic influence, moving us from a US-dominated era once dominated by the US to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has provoked means open commerce is giving way to protectionism. Where economics used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies characterized by reshoring and friend-shoring and by bans on international commerce, investment and technology transfer, lowering international cooperation to its weakest point since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The situation is not fixed, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the global public. In a poll conducted for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to embrace global teamwork than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number 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 impossible or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

However there are an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see international collaboration through free commerce as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the global public are moderate in views: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, 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 “others”, adversaries always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates prefer a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or city wall? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A initial segment, about a fifth, will back aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of selflessness, backing emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists empathize of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.

Another segment 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 third group, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a definite majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if funds are used wisely but also for international measures to deal with global problems, like climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is argued on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we emphasize the reciprocal benefits that flow to them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the answer is both.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can overcome today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we champion a optimistic, globally engaged and welcoming national pride 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, illegal immigration is currently the biggest national issue – and it's clear that it must promptly 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 own local communities. Last month, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly 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 prime minister also reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. A Reform leader praised a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in public services. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by £275bn would not repair struggling areas but ravage them, turn citizen against citizen and wreck any sense of unity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be ill, impaired, needy or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are telling us all over the west is that they want their governments to restore our economies and our communities. “Reform” and its global allies should be exposed repeatedly for policies that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a argument for a improved nation that resonates not just to visionaries, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.