🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his Reform UK party as a distinct occurrence that has burst on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable historic moment. However this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties like his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency and the legislature. In Germany, 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 government, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, motivated by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, diminish human rights and undermine international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy overlook at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has replaced economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russian primacy”, “group priority” and often “exclusive group focus” 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 violations of international human rights law not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to grasp the root causes, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this new age of nationalism. It starts with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system that has been unjust to all.

Over the past ten years, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the millions who feel left out and left behind, but also to the changing balance of world economic influence, transitioning from a unipolar world once dominated by the US to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means free trade is being replaced by trade barriers. Where economics used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies characterized by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by restrictions on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, sinking global collaboration to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

However, there is hope. 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 prominent organization, of 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a significant portion are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to support international cooperation 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 global population (even if 25% in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between diverse communities 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.

However there are another 21% at the other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the global public 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 “them”, adversaries permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under specific circumstances. A initial segment, about a fifth, will support aid efforts to alleviate hardship 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 have faith in something bigger than themselves.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage 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, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a definite majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if funds are used wisely but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this argument is presented on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we stress the mutual advantages that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a need to cooperate, the response is both.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome current pessimistic, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that vilifies immigrants, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, outward-looking and welcoming patriotism that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and it's clear that it must quickly be managed effectively – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the public are even more worried by 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, “dysfunctional” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most frequently used 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 implement a comparable strategy – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not repair downtrodden communities but damage them, turn citizen against citizen and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, poor or vulnerable. Continually from now on, and in every electoral district, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which school and which government service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their governments to rebuild our economies and our civic societies. “The party” 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 the party's contradictions by presenting a argument for a improved nation that appeals not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.