🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader depicts his Reform UK party as a unique occurrence that has burst on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional epochal event. But this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties like his are also leading in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš 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 French presidency and the legislature. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party is currently the most popular party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Italian political group are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, motivated by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, seeking to overthrow the international rule of law, diminish human rights and destroy multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a recent undeniable reality that democrats ignore at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has replaced neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russian primacy”, “my tribe first” and often “exclusive group focus” 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 breaches of global human rights standards not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

Crucial to grasp the root causes, widespread globally, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It starts with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system that has been unjust to all.

Over the past ten years, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel left out and left behind, but also to the changing balance of world economic influence, transitioning from a unipolar world once dominated by the United States to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means open commerce is giving way to trade barriers. Where economics used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies marked out by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on cross-border trade, foreign funding and technology transfer, lowering international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

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 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a clear majority are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to support global teamwork than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, 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 coexistence between ethnic and religious groups 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.

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

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority of the world's citizens 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 permanent conflict between the “our side” and the “them”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A first group, about a fifth, will support humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of selflessness, supporting emergency help 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.

Another segment comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for global progress are used effectively. And there is a final category, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it advantages 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 built not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for international measures to deal with worldwide issues, like climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is presented on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we emphasize the reciprocal benefits 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 each.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can defeat current pessimistic, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that demonises newcomers, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and inclusive patriotism that responds to people’s need for community and connects to their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must quickly 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 immediate neighborhoods. Recently, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome 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 economy and community.

But as the prime minister also reminded us, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. Nigel Farage hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not repair downtrodden communities 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, poor or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their governments to rebuild our financial systems and our communities. “Reform” and its international partners should be revealed day after day 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 Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a argument for a better Britain that resonates not just to visionaries, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.