🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his political party as a distinct occurrence that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional historic moment. However this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the United States and South America, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties like his are also ahead in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš overthrew the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of 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 most popular party. A Hungarian political force, 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, inspired by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the global legal order, diminish fundamental freedoms and destroy international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge reveals a recent undeniable reality that democrats ignore at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has supplanted neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “my tribe first” and often “my tribe first and only” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment 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.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to understand the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. It starts with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

Over the past ten years, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel left out and marginalized, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, transitioning from a US-dominated era 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 provoked means free trade is giving way to trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies marked out by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by bans on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, lowering global collaboration to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The cement is still wet, and even as it hardens we can find hope in the pragmatism of the global public. In a poll conducted for a prominent organization, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing 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 global population (even if 25% in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups is impossible or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the expense 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 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 “America first” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “us” and the “them”, 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 local area or community boundaries? Yes, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will back aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of altruism, backing disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists feel the pain of others and have faith in something larger than their own interests.

A second group comprising 22% are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any taxes paid for global progress are used effectively. And there is a final category, roughly a fifth, 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 basic necessities or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a clear majority can be constructed 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 presented on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we emphasize the mutual advantages 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 each.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can defeat today’s negative, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we champion a optimistic, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that addresses people’s need for community and connects to their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the top concern – and it's clear that it must quickly be brought under control – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the people are even more concerned about what is happening in their own lives and within their immediate neighborhoods. Last month, a prominent leader gave an emotional speech about how what’s good about Britain can drive out what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “broken” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our economy and society.

But as the prime minister also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. A Reform leader hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was intended – the largest reductions in public services. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not fix downtrodden communities but ravage them, create social division and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be ill, disabled, needy or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, 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 harmful even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are telling us all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to restore our economies and our civic societies. “The party” and its global allies should be exposed repeatedly for plans that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be ahead of us, we can go beyond highlighting Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a argument for a better Britain that resonates not just to visionaries, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.