🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his political party as a distinct occurrence that has burst on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional epochal event. But this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from India and Thailand to the United States and South America, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also leading in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and parliament. In the German nation, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the leading party. A Hungarian political force, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Italian political group are already in government, 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, motivated by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, aiming to dethrone the global legal order, diminish fundamental freedoms and destroy multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats overlook at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled 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”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” 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 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 root causes, widespread globally, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It starts with a widely felt sense that a globalization that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has not been fair to all.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the millions 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 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 free trade is being replaced by trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies characterized by reshoring and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on cross-border trade, investment and knowledge sharing, lowering global collaboration 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 poll conducted for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to embrace global teamwork than many of the officials who rule over them.

Across the world there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the global population (even if 25% in the United States currently) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is unattainable or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

But there are another 21% at the opposite extreme, 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 “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “our side” and the “them”, adversaries permanently set apart from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or community boundaries? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will back humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of altruism, backing disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists feel the pain 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 taxes paid for international development are spent well. 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 basic necessities or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So 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 climate crisis and disease control, as long as this argument is argued on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we emphasize the reciprocal benefits that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long wondered 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 turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “others” as long as we champion a optimistic, globally engaged and welcoming patriotism that responds to people’s desire to belong and connects to their everyday worries.

Tackling Key Issues

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and it's clear that it must promptly be brought under control – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the people are even more worried by what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. Last month, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain 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 frequently used when asked about both our financial system and community.

But as the prime minister also reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. A Reform leader hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not fix downtrodden communities but ravage them, create social division and destroy any spirit of solidarity. 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 electoral district, Reform should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which public service will be the first to be cut or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the public are indicating all over the west is that they want their leaders to rebuild our economies and our civic societies. “The party” and its international partners should be revealed 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 argument for a better Britain that resonates not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.