🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his political party as a unique phenomenon that has exploded on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable epochal event. But this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the United States and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties like his are also ahead in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, motivated by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the global legal order, weaken human rights and undermine international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge exposes a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has replaced economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “group priority” 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 this ideology is the force behind the violations of global human rights standards 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 understand the root causes, widespread globally, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a unregulated system that has not been fair to all.

Over the past ten years, political figures have not only been slow to respond to the millions who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, transitioning from a US-dominated era once led by the US to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means free trade is giving way to trade barriers. Where economics used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies characterized by reshoring and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, lowering international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the common sense of the world's population. In a poll conducted for a prominent organization, of 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a clear majority are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to embrace global teamwork than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing 16.5% of the global population (even if 25% in today’s US) 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 cost of others doing badly.

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

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the global public are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, as “America first” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “our side” and the “others”, adversaries permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their local area or city wall? Yes, under certain conditions. A first group, about a fifth, will back aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of selflessness, supporting emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates empathize of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.

A second group 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 final category, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a definite majority can be constructed not just for humanitarian aid if money is well spent but also for international measures to deal with global problems, like climate crisis and disease control, as long as this argument 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 questioned whether we work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the answer is each.

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

Addressing Public Concerns

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry is currently the top concern – and it's clear that it must quickly 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. Last month, a prominent leader gave an emotional speech about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome what’s negative, 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 pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. Nigel Farage praised a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since the 1980s. But he would also implement a comparable strategy – what was planned – the largest reductions in public services. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not repair 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 sick, disabled, poor or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, 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 restore our economies and our civic societies. “The party” and its global allies should be revealed day after day for policies that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a case for a improved nation that resonates not just to visionaries, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.