🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his Reform UK party as a unique phenomenon that has burst on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional historic moment. However this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from India and Thailand to the United States and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, 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 leading 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 Italian political group are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, seeking to dethrone the global legal order, diminish fundamental freedoms and undermine multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave exposes a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy ignore at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “India first”, “China first”, “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 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and this ideology is the force behind the breaches of global human rights standards not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

Crucial to grasp the root causes, common to almost every country, that have driven 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 excluded 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 competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means open commerce is giving way to protectionism. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving economic decisions, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies characterized by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by bans on international commerce, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, lowering international cooperation to its weakest point since the post-war period.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the common sense of the global public. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to embrace international cooperation than many of the leaders who govern them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the world's people (even if a quarter in the United States currently) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is impossible or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

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

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the global public are moderate in views: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “our side” and the “others”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Are most moderates favor a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or city wall? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A first group, 22%, will back aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists feel the pain of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

Another segment comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for global progress are spent well. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a clear 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 environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is argued on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we emphasize the mutual advantages 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.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome today’s negative, isolated and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that demonises immigrants, foreigners and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, globally engaged 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, illegal immigration is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be managed effectively – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the people are even more concerned about what is happening in their own lives and within their own local communities. Last month, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “broken” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most frequently used 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 resolving issues. Nigel Farage hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the largest reductions in public services. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not fix downtrodden communities but ravage them, create social division and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, needy or at-risk. Continually from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which medical facility, which school and which public service will be the first to be cut or shut down.

Risks and Solutions

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond austerity. What the people are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to rebuild our financial systems 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 case for a better Britain that resonates not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.