🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a unique occurrence that has burst on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional historic moment. But this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the United States and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also leading in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš overthrew prime minister 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 parliament. In the German nation, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – 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 destroy international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge reveals a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has replaced neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “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 this ideology is the driver behind the breaches of international human rights law not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

It is important to understand the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It starts with a widely felt sense 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, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel left out and marginalized, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, moving us from a unipolar world once led 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 nationalist ideology that this has incited means open commerce is giving way to trade barriers. Where economics used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas 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 technology transfer, lowering international cooperation to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, and even as it hardens 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 significant portion are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to embrace international cooperation than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the world's people (even if a quarter in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living 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 an additional group at the other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, 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

The vast majority of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are patriotic 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 unbridgeable divide.

Are most moderates favor a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will back humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of altruism, supporting 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.

A second group comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for global progress are spent well. And there is a final category, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a clear majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is presented on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we stress the mutual advantages that flow to them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the answer is both.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often forceful and controlling nationalism that demonises immigrants, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, globally engaged and welcoming patriotism that responds to people’s desire to belong and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and it's clear that it must promptly be managed effectively – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public are even more concerned about what is happening in their own lives and within their own local communities. Last month, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can drive out what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “broken” 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 extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. Nigel Farage hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. 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 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 sick, disabled, poor or vulnerable. Continually from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be cut or shut down.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetarism, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the public are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to rebuild our financial systems and our communities. “The party” and its global allies should be exposed day after day for plans 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 setting out a case for a better Britain that resonates not just to idealists, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.