🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a distinct phenomenon that has burst on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable epochal event. But this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the US and South America, far-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 Andrej Babiš toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another French prime minister, is leading the polls for both the presidential race and parliament. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party 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 Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, inspired by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, aiming to overthrow the global legal order, weaken human rights and destroy multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave reveals a recent undeniable reality that democrats ignore at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has supplanted economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “my tribe first” and often “my tribe first and only” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism that helps explain why the world is now composed of many autocratic states and fewer democratic ones, and ethnic nationalism is the force behind the violations of global human rights standards not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

Crucial to grasp the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It begins with a widely felt sense that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, political figures have not only been slow to respond to the millions who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, moving us from a unipolar world 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 incited means free trade is being replaced by trade barriers. Where economics used to drive politics, 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 cross-border trade, investment and technology transfer, lowering global collaboration to its weakest point since 1945.

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 common sense of the global public. In a poll conducted for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to embrace global teamwork than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing 16.5% of the world's people (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups 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 dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through free commerce as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the global public are moderate in views: not isolated patriots, 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 “our side” and the “others”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates favor a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or community boundaries? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will support aid efforts to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of altruism, backing emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists feel the pain of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising 22% are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for international development are used effectively. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a clear 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 argued on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress 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 cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can overcome current pessimistic, isolated and often forceful and controlling nationalism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we champion a optimistic, globally engaged and welcoming patriotism that responds to people’s need for community and connects to 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 no one should doubt 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, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can overcome what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our financial system and society.

However, as the prime minister also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. Nigel Farage hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not repair struggling areas but ravage them, create social division and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, needy or vulnerable. 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 cut or shut down.

Risks and Solutions

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetarism, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their governments to rebuild our economies and our communities. “Reform” and its global allies should be revealed repeatedly 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 setting out a argument for a better Britain that resonates not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.