🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his Reform UK party as a unique occurrence that has exploded on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional historic moment. However this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from India and Thailand to the US and South America, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties like his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and the legislature. In Germany, 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 staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, motivated by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, aiming to overthrow the global legal order, diminish fundamental freedoms and undermine multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge reveals a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy ignore at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has replaced economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “group priority” and often “my tribe first and only” 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 one nation in conflict but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

It is important to understand the root causes, common to almost every country, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It starts with a widely felt sense that a globalization that was open but not inclusive has been a free for all that has not been fair to all.

Over the past ten years, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the millions who feel left out and marginalized, but also to the changing balance of world economic influence, transitioning from a US-dominated era once dominated by the United States to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means open commerce is giving way to trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies marked out by reshoring and friend-shoring and by restrictions on cross-border trade, foreign funding and technology transfer, sinking international cooperation to its weakest point 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 common sense of the global public. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to support international cooperation than many of the leaders who govern them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the global population (even if a quarter in the United States currently) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is unattainable 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.

However there are an additional group at the other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through free commerce as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

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 all-in cosmopolitans. They are devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “them”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle favor a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or city wall? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will back humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of selflessness, backing emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.

A second group 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, roughly a fifth, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it advantages 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 emergency assistance if funds are used wisely but also for global action to deal with global problems, like climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we stress the reciprocal benefits that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long wondered whether we work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the response is each.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat current pessimistic, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we champion a positive, globally engaged and welcoming patriotism that responds to people’s desire to belong and resonates with their everyday worries.

Tackling Key Issues

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the west, illegal immigration 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 public are even more worried by what is happening in their own lives and within their own local communities. Recently, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can drive out 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 community.

However, as the leader also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. Nigel Farage hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was intended – the largest reductions in government programs. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not repair downtrodden communities but damage 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 medical facility, which school and which public service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

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 indicating all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to rebuild our financial systems and our communities. “The party” and its international partners should be exposed repeatedly for policies that would harm 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 presenting a case for a better Britain that resonates not just to visionaries, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the British people.