🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader depicts his political party as a distinct occurrence 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 major countries and from India and Thailand to the United States and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties like his are also ahead in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš overthrew prime minister 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 the German nation, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) 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 Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, inspired by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, seeking to overthrow the international rule of law, diminish fundamental freedoms and undermine multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave exposes a recent undeniable reality that democrats ignore at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has supplanted economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “India first”, “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 this ideology is the driver behind the breaches of international human rights law not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

Crucial to understand the root causes, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this new age of nationalism. It begins with a broadly shared perception 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, political figures have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the changing balance 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 rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means free trade is giving way to protectionism. Where economics used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving economic decisions, and already more than 100 countries are running mercantilist policies characterized by reshoring and friend-shoring and by bans on international commerce, investment and technology transfer, lowering international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

But all is not lost. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens we can find hope in the pragmatism of the global public. In a poll conducted for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in 34 countries we find a significant portion are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to embrace global teamwork than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of staunch global cooperation opponents representing 16.5% of the world's people (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel peaceful living between diverse communities is unattainable or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

But there are an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see international collaboration 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

Most people of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “our side” and the “others”, opponents 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 prepared to accept obligations beyond their local area or community boundaries? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A first group, about a fifth, will back aid efforts to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of altruism, backing emergency help for affected areas. 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 pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for international development are used effectively. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse cooperation 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

So a clear majority can be constructed not just for humanitarian aid if funds are used wisely but also for global action to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is presented on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we emphasize the mutual advantages that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the response is each.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome current pessimistic, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling nationalism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “others” as long as we champion a positive, globally engaged and welcoming national pride that addresses people’s need for community and connects to their everyday worries.

Tackling Key Issues

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and it's clear that it must promptly be brought under control – 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 positive in the nation can overcome what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our financial system and society.

However, as the leader also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. Nigel Farage praised a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also implement a comparable strategy – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not fix struggling areas 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 ill, disabled, poor or at-risk. Continually from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond austerity. What the people are indicating all over the west is that they want their governments to restore our economies and our communities. “The party” and its international partners should be exposed day after day for plans that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a argument 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.