🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a distinct occurrence that has exploded on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional historic moment. But this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from India and Thailand to the United States and South America, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties like his are also leading in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, 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 leading 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 Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, seeking to overthrow the global legal order, weaken human rights and destroy international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats ignore at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has replaced economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russian primacy”, “group priority” 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 ethnic nationalism 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 fuelled this recent nationalist era. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive has been a free for all 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 left out and left behind, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the United States to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means open commerce is giving way to protectionism. 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 bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, lowering global collaboration to its weakest point since 1945.

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 common sense of the global public. In a recent survey for a major foundation, of 36,000 people in 34 countries 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 govern them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of staunch global cooperation opponents representing 16.5% of the global population (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups is impossible or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

But there are an additional group at the other end, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see international collaboration through open trade as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what an influential thinker calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority of the global public are moderate in views: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “America first” 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 “them”, opponents always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates favor a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their local area or city wall? Yes, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will back humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of selflessness, backing disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates empathize of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.

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

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a clear majority can be constructed not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for international measures 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 emphasize the reciprocal benefits that flow to them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the response is both.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome today’s negative, isolated and often forceful and controlling nationalism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a positive, globally engaged and welcoming patriotism that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be managed effectively – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public are even more worried by 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 overcome what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “dysfunctional” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our economy and society.

But as the prime minister also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. Nigel Farage hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since the 1980s. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in public services. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not fix struggling areas but ravage 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 at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which hospital, which school and which government service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most inhumane, 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 financial systems and our civic societies. “The party” and its global allies should be exposed day after day for policies 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 Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a case for a better Britain that resonates not just to visionaries, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.