🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his political party as a distinct phenomenon that has exploded on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional historic moment. But this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties like his are also leading in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, 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 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 Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, motivated by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, seeking to overthrow the global legal order, diminish fundamental freedoms and destroy international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave reveals a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy ignore at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has replaced economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “India first”, “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 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.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to understand the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. It begins with a widely felt sense that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system that has not been fair 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 changing balance of world economic influence, moving us from a unipolar world once led by the United States to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means open commerce is being replaced by protectionism. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies marked out by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on international commerce, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, lowering global collaboration to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

But all is not lost. The situation is not fixed, 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 dozens of nations we find a clear majority are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to support international cooperation than many of the officials who rule over them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the global population (even if 25% in the United States currently) who either feel coexistence 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 mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority of the world's citizens 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 never-ending struggle between the “our side” and the “them”, opponents always divided 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 local area or city wall? Yes, under specific circumstances. A initial segment, 22%, will support aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of altruism, backing 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 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, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

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

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that demonises newcomers, foreigners and “others” as long as we champion a positive, outward-looking and welcoming national pride that addresses people’s desire to belong and resonates with their everyday worries.

Tackling Key Issues

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be managed effectively – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the people are even more worried by what is happening in their own lives and within their own local communities. Last month, the UK Prime Minister gave an emotional speech about how what’s positive in the nation can drive out what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our financial system and community.

But as the leader also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. A Reform leader hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also implement a comparable strategy – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in public services. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not repair downtrodden communities but ravage them, create social division and destroy any sense of unity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be ill, disabled, poor or at-risk. Continually 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 closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond austerity. What the public are telling us all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to restore our financial systems and our civic societies. “The party” and its global allies should be revealed repeatedly 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.