🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader depicts his political party as a distinct occurrence that has burst on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional epochal event. But this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also leading in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš overthrew the head of government Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is leading the polls for both the French presidency and the legislature. 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 government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, motivated by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, seeking to overthrow the global legal order, weaken fundamental freedoms and undermine multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave reveals a recent undeniable reality that democrats overlook at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has replaced neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “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 this ideology is the driver behind the violations of global human rights standards not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

It is important to understand the root causes, widespread globally, 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 unregulated system that has been unjust to all.

Over the past ten years, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the millions who feel left out and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, transitioning from a US-dominated era once dominated by the US to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means free trade is giving way to protectionism. Where economics used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies characterized by reshoring and ally-focused trade and by bans on cross-border trade, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, lowering international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens we can see optimism in the common sense of the world's population. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to embrace global teamwork than many of the leaders who govern them.

Across the world there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the world's people (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel coexistence 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.

But there are another 21% at the opposite extreme, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through free commerce as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what an influential thinker calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

The vast majority of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, 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 never-ending struggle between the “our side” and the “others”, adversaries permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle favor a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their local area or city wall? Yes, under specific circumstances. A first group, about a fifth, will back aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of altruism, supporting disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists empathize of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

A second group comprising 22% are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for global progress are used effectively. And there is a final category, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a clear majority can be constructed not just for humanitarian aid if funds are used wisely but also for international measures to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is argued on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress the reciprocal benefits that benefit 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 response is each.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome today’s negative, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that demonises immigrants, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and welcoming patriotism that responds to people’s desire to belong and resonates with their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be managed effectively – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the public are even more concerned about what is happening in their own lives and within their own local communities. Recently, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain 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 community.

But as the leader also reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. Nigel Farage praised a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was intended – the largest reductions in public services. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by £275bn would not fix struggling areas but damage them, turn citizen against citizen and wreck any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, poor 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.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetarism, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are telling us all over the Western world is that they want their governments to rebuild our economies and our communities. “The party” and its global allies should be exposed repeatedly for policies 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 the party's contradictions by setting out a argument for a better Britain that resonates not just to visionaries, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.