Nigel Farage portrays his Reform UK party as a unique occurrence that has exploded on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional epochal event. But this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the US and South America, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also ahead in the public surveys.
During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and the legislature. 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 Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (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, seeking to overthrow the international rule of law, weaken human rights and destroy multilateral cooperation.
The Populist Nationalist Surge
This nationalist wave reveals a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy ignore at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has replaced neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russian primacy”, “group priority” 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 this ideology is the force behind the violations of global human rights standards not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.
Understanding the Underlying Forces
Crucial to understand the root causes, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. It starts with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.
Over the past ten years, leaders have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the changing balance of world economic influence, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the US to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means free trade is giving way to trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies marked out by reshoring and friend-shoring and by restrictions on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, sinking global collaboration to its weakest point since 1945.
Hope in Global Public Sentiment
However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the global public. In a poll conducted for a prominent organization, of thousands of individuals in 34 countries we find a significant portion are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to support international cooperation than many of the leaders who rule over them.
Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority 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 country do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.
But there are an additional group at the other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see international collaboration through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what an influential thinker calls “locally engaged global citizens”.
The Global Majority's Stance
The vast majority of the world's citizens are moderate in views: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “US priority” 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 always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.
Do the majority in the middle favor a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their local area or city wall? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A first group, 22%, will back humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of altruism, supporting disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists empathize of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.
Another segment comprising a similar percentage are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for international development are used effectively. And there is a final category, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or peace and security.
Forging a Collaborative Consensus
Thus a clear 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 environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress the reciprocal benefits 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 need to cooperate, the answer is each.
This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that demonises immigrants, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we champion a optimistic, outward-looking and inclusive patriotism that addresses people’s need for community 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 quickly be managed effectively – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the people are even more concerned about what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their own local communities. Last month, the UK Prime Minister 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, “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 far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. Nigel Farage hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in public services. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not fix struggling areas but damage them, create social division and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, needy or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which public service will be the first to be reduced or closed.
The Stakes and the Alternative
“Faragism” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are telling us all over the west is that they want their leaders to rebuild our financial systems and our communities. “Reform” and its international partners should be exposed 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 highlighting the party's contradictions by setting out a case for a improved nation that resonates not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.
