🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his Reform UK party as a unique phenomenon that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional epochal event. However this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the United States and South America, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, 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 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 global alliance of anti-internationalists, inspired by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, aiming to overthrow the international rule of law, diminish human rights and undermine international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats ignore at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has replaced economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “group priority” and often “exclusive group focus” 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 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

It is important to understand the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It begins with a widely felt sense that a globalization that was open but not inclusive has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the millions who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the changing balance of world economic influence, transitioning from a unipolar world once led by the US to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means open commerce is being replaced by protectionism. Where economics used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies characterized by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on international commerce, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, sinking international cooperation to its weakest point since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, and even as it hardens we can see optimism in the common sense of the global public. In a recent survey for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to embrace international cooperation than many of the officials who rule over them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the global population (even if 25% in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups is unattainable or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their nation 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 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 global public 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 never-ending struggle between the “our side” and the “others”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle favor a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or city wall? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A first group, 22%, will back humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of altruism, backing emergency help for affected areas. 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 a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for global progress are used effectively. And there is a third group, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a clear majority can be built not just for emergency assistance 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 presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, 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 work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the response 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 aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we champion a positive, globally engaged and welcoming patriotism that addresses people’s desire to belong and resonates with their everyday worries.

Tackling Key Issues

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must promptly 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 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 western countries, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our financial system and society.

But as the leader also reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. A Reform leader hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in public services. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not fix downtrodden communities but ravage them, turn citizen against citizen and wreck any sense of unity. 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 hospital, which school and which public service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetarism, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are telling us all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to rebuild our financial systems and our civic societies. “The party” and its international partners should be exposed 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 setting out a case for a better Britain that appeals not just to idealists, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.