🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his political party as a unique phenomenon that has exploded on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable historic moment. However this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the US and South America, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties like his are also leading in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race 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 Freedom party of Austria (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 far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, seeking to overthrow the international rule of law, diminish fundamental freedoms and undermine international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats ignore at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has replaced neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” and often “my tribe first and only” 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 international human rights law not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

It is important to grasp the root causes, widespread globally, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It starts with a widely felt sense that a globalization that was open but not inclusive has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, 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 global economic power, 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 might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means free trade is being replaced by trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies characterized by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by bans on cross-border trade, foreign funding and technology transfer, lowering international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the world's population. In a recent survey for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to support international cooperation than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the world's people (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is unattainable or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

However there are another 21% at the other end, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through free commerce as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

The vast majority of the global public are moderate in views: not isolated patriots, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are devoted to their country 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 irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under specific circumstances. A first group, about a fifth, will back humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of selflessness, supporting disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

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, 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 food on the table or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a clear majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid if funds are used wisely but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, 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 work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the answer is both.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can defeat current pessimistic, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that vilifies newcomers, foreigners and “others” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, outward-looking and inclusive patriotism that responds to people’s desire to belong and connects to their everyday worries.

Tackling Key Issues

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, illegal immigration is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be brought under control – 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. Recently, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can drive out what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “dysfunctional” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our economy and society.

But as the leader also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. A Reform leader hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. 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, turn citizen against citizen and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, needy or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which hospital, which school and which government service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetarism, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are telling us all over the west is that they want their governments to rebuild our economies and our civic societies. “Reform” and its international partners should be revealed repeatedly for policies that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be ahead of us, we can go beyond highlighting the party's contradictions by setting out a argument for a better Britain that resonates not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.