🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a distinct phenomenon that has burst on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional historic moment. However this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the US and South America, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties like his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, 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 France's leader, is leading the polls for both the presidential race and the legislature. 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 power, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, motivated by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, aiming to dethrone the global legal order, weaken human rights and undermine international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy ignore at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has replaced economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “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 violations of global human rights standards not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

Crucial to grasp the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. It starts with a widely felt sense that a globalization that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has not been fair to all.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been delayed in addressing to the millions who feel left out and left behind, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, transitioning from a US-dominated era once led by the US to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means free trade is being replaced by protectionism. Where market forces used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies characterized by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by restrictions on international commerce, investment and technology transfer, sinking 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 solidifies we can see optimism in the common sense of the global public. In a poll conducted for a prominent organization, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to support international cooperation than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Across the world there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the world's people (even if a quarter 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 nation do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

But there are another 21% at the other end, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see international collaboration through free commerce as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, 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 “us” and the “others”, opponents always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle favor a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A first group, 22%, will support aid efforts to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of altruism, supporting disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates empathize of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for international development are used effectively. And there is a third group, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

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 environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress the mutual advantages that flow to them and their own country. And thus for those who have long wondered whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the response is each.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can overcome today’s negative, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling nationalism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, outward-looking and welcoming patriotism that responds to people’s need for community and connects to their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the top concern – and it's clear that it must promptly be brought under control – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public are even more concerned about what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their own local communities. Recently, the UK Prime Minister gave an emotional speech about how what’s good about Britain can overcome what’s negative, 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 financial system and community.

However, as the leader also pointed out, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. A Reform leader praised a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the largest reductions in government programs. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not fix downtrodden communities but damage them, turn citizen against citizen and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, poor or vulnerable. Continually 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 cut or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to rebuild our economies and our communities. “The party” and its global allies should be exposed repeatedly for policies that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be ahead of us, we can go beyond pointing out the party's contradictions by presenting a case for a improved nation that appeals not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the British people.