🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader depicts his political party as a distinct occurrence that has burst on to the global stage, its meteoric rise 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 leading in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, motivated by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the global legal order, weaken human rights and destroy international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge exposes a recent undeniable reality that democrats overlook at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “group priority” 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 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 grasp the root causes, widespread globally, 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.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the millions who feel left out and marginalized, but also to the shifting dynamics of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era once dominated by the US to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means free trade is being replaced by trade barriers. Where economics used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies marked out by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by restrictions on cross-border trade, investment and knowledge sharing, lowering international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The situation is not fixed, and even as it solidifies we can find hope in the pragmatism of the global public. In a recent survey for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to embrace international cooperation than many of the officials who rule over them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the global population (even if a quarter in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups is unattainable or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

However there are an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders 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

The vast majority of the global public are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, 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”, adversaries always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle favor a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or city wall? Yes, under specific circumstances. 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 disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and have faith in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for international development are spent well. And there is a third group, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a definite majority can be constructed not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for international measures to deal with worldwide issues, like climate crisis and disease control, as long as this case is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress the reciprocal benefits that flow to them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we work together from necessity or if we have a need to cooperate, the answer is both.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that demonises immigrants, foreigners and “others” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, outward-looking and welcoming patriotism that addresses people’s desire to belong and connects to their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be brought under control – the public sentiment data 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, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can drive out what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “dysfunctional” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our financial system and community.

However, as the prime minister also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. A Reform leader praised 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. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not fix struggling areas but damage them, create social division and wreck any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be ill, impaired, needy or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which public service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are telling us all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to restore our financial systems and our civic societies. “Reform” and its global allies should be exposed repeatedly 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 highlighting the party's contradictions by presenting a case for a improved nation that appeals not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.