🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a unique occurrence that has burst on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable epochal event. However this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the United States and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also leading in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is leading the polls for both the presidential race and the legislature. In the German nation, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition 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 international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, aiming to dethrone the global legal order, weaken fundamental freedoms and destroy multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats overlook at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has supplanted neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “Chinese emphasis”, “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 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and this ideology is the driver behind the breaches of global human rights standards not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

Crucial to understand the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a unregulated system that has not been fair to all.

Over the past ten years, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the changing balance of world economic influence, transitioning from a unipolar world once led by the US to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means free trade is being replaced by protectionism. Where economics used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies marked out by reshoring and friend-shoring and by bans on international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, lowering international cooperation to its weakest point since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can find hope in the pragmatism of the world's population. In a recent survey for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in 34 countries we find a significant portion are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to embrace global teamwork than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the world's people (even if a quarter in today’s US) 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 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 “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the global public are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, as “America first” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “our side” and the “them”, opponents always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their garden gate or city wall? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A initial segment, 22%, will back humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of altruism, backing emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

A second group comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for global progress are spent well. And there is a third group, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a clear majority can be constructed not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this argument is argued on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we emphasize the reciprocal benefits that benefit 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 cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can overcome current pessimistic, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that demonises immigrants, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a positive, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be brought under control – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public are even more concerned about what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. Recently, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our financial system and society.

But as the leader also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. A Reform leader praised a disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in public services. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not repair downtrodden communities but ravage them, create social division and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, needy or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which medical facility, which school and which public service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their governments to rebuild our economies and our civic societies. “Reform” and its international partners should be revealed day after day for plans that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be ahead of us, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a case for a improved nation that resonates not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.