🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a distinct phenomenon that has burst on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional epochal event. However this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from India and Thailand to the United States and South America, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš overthrew the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and the legislature. In the German nation, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, motivated by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, weaken human rights and undermine multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave exposes a recent undeniable reality that democrats ignore at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has replaced neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russian primacy”, “group priority” 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 ethnic nationalism is the force behind the violations 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 grasp the root causes, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. 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.

Over the past ten years, leaders have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel left out and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the United States to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means free trade is giving way to protectionism. Where economics used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies characterized by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by restrictions on international commerce, investment and technology transfer, lowering international cooperation to its weakest point since the post-war period.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens we can find hope in the pragmatism of the world's population. In a poll conducted for a prominent organization, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to support international cooperation than many of the officials 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 25% in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between diverse communities is unattainable or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

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

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the global public are moderate in views: 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 permanent conflict between the “our side” and the “others”, adversaries always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Are most moderates favor a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or city wall? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will support humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are prepared 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 bigger than themselves.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are used effectively. And there is a final category, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them basic necessities or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus 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 climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we emphasize the mutual advantages 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 need to cooperate, the answer is each.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can defeat current pessimistic, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we champion a optimistic, outward-looking and inclusive patriotism that responds to people’s need for community and connects to their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – 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 worried by 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 bad, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “dysfunctional” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our economy and society.

But as the leader also reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. Nigel Farage hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not fix downtrodden communities but damage them, create social division and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be ill, disabled, needy or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which medical facility, which school and which government service will be the first to be cut or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their governments to restore our economies and our civic societies. “Reform” and its global allies should be exposed day after day for plans that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be ahead of us, we can go beyond pointing out the party's contradictions by setting out a argument for a better Britain that appeals not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the British people.