🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader depicts his political party as a unique phenomenon that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable historic moment. However this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the US and South America, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also leading in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down yet another French prime minister, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and parliament. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party is currently the most popular 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 Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, inspired by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, aiming to overthrow the global legal order, diminish fundamental freedoms and destroy international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge reveals a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy ignore at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has replaced neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “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 force behind the breaches of global human rights standards not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

It is important to understand the root causes, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this new age of nationalism. It starts with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive has been a free for all that has not been fair to all.

For more than a decade, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the millions who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, moving us from a unipolar world once dominated by the US to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means open commerce is being replaced by trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies characterized by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on international commerce, investment and technology transfer, lowering global collaboration 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 hardens we can find hope in the common sense of the world's population. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a significant portion are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to support global teamwork than many of the officials 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 25% in the United States currently) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is impossible or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their country 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 international collaboration through free commerce as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the global public 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 permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates favor a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Yes, under specific circumstances. A initial segment, 22%, will back aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of altruism, supporting disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates empathize of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

A second group comprising 22% are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for global progress are used effectively. And there is a third group, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a definite majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this case 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 need to cooperate, the answer is both.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat current pessimistic, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that vilifies newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and welcoming national pride that responds to people’s need for community and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be brought under control – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public are even more worried by what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. Last month, a prominent leader 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 “in decline” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our financial system and community.

However, as the prime minister also reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. Nigel Farage praised a disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in public services. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not fix downtrodden communities but damage them, create social division and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be ill, impaired, needy or at-risk. Continually from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which public service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their governments to rebuild our economies 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 the party's contradictions by presenting a case for a better Britain that resonates not just to visionaries, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the British people.