🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a distinct occurrence that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable historic moment. But this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the US and South America, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also leading in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure overthrew the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, is leading the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. A Hungarian political force, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Italian political group are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, motivated by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to overthrow the global legal order, weaken human rights and undermine international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy 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: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “group priority” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment that helps explain why the world is now composed of 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and ethnic nationalism is the driver behind the violations of international human rights law not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to grasp the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It starts with a widely felt sense that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, political figures 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 global economic power, transitioning from a unipolar world once dominated by the United States 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 provoked means open commerce is giving way to protectionism. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running mercantilist policies characterized by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by bans on international commerce, investment and technology transfer, lowering global collaboration to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The cement is still wet, and even as it hardens we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the global public. In a poll conducted for a prominent organization, 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 international cooperation than many of the leaders who govern them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the world's people (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between ethnic and religious groups is unattainable or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

But there are an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what an influential thinker calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority 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 “others”, adversaries permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates prefer a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their garden gate or city wall? Yes, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will back aid efforts to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of altruism, backing disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for global progress are used effectively. And there is a third group, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve cooperation 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.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a definite majority can be constructed not just for humanitarian aid if money is well spent but also for international measures to deal with global problems, like climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is presented on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we emphasize the reciprocal benefits that flow to them and their own country. And thus for those who have long wondered whether we work together from necessity 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 anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome today’s negative, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that vilifies immigrants, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, outward-looking and inclusive patriotism that responds to people’s desire to belong and resonates with their everyday worries.

Tackling Key Issues

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the biggest national issue – and it's clear 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 personal circumstances and within their own local communities. Last month, a prominent leader gave an emotional speech about how what’s good about Britain can drive out what’s negative, 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 financial system and community.

But as the leader also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. 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 intended – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not fix downtrodden communities 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 sick, disabled, needy or vulnerable. Continually from now on, and in every electoral district, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution 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 inhumane, more harmful even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond austerity. What the public are telling us all over the west is that they want their governments to rebuild our financial systems and our communities. “The party” and its global allies should be revealed repeatedly 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 highlighting the party's contradictions by setting out a argument for a improved nation that resonates not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the British people.