🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a unique occurrence that has burst on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable historic moment. However this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from India and Thailand to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also ahead in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is leading the polls for both the presidential race and the legislature. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. A Hungarian political force, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Italian political group are already in power, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, motivated by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, seeking to overthrow the global legal order, weaken human rights and undermine international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy overlook at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has replaced economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “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 many autocratic states and fewer democratic ones, and ethnic nationalism is the driver behind the breaches of international human rights law not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to grasp the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. It starts with a broadly shared perception 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 shifting dynamics of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the US to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited 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 mercantilist policies marked out by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by bans on cross-border trade, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, lowering global collaboration to its weakest point since the post-war period.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

But all is not lost. The cement is still wet, and even as it hardens we can find hope 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 clear majority are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to support international cooperation than many of the officials who govern them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group 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 zero-sum mindset that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

However there are an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see international collaboration through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what an influential thinker calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the global public are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “America first” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. 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 always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Are most moderates prefer a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their garden gate or city wall? Yes, under certain conditions. A first group, about a fifth, will support humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of altruism, supporting disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

Another segment comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for global progress are used effectively. And there is a final category, roughly a fifth, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a definite majority can be built 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 case is argued 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 work together from necessity or if we have a need to cooperate, the response is both.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that vilifies newcomers, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and inclusive national pride that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be brought under control – the public sentiment data 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 western countries, “dysfunctional” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our economy and society.

But as the leader also reminded us, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. A Reform leader praised a disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not fix downtrodden communities but ravage them, create social division and destroy any sense of unity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be ill, impaired, poor or at-risk. Continually from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which medical facility, which school and which public service will be the first to be cut or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetarism, and vindictive 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. “Reform” and its global allies 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 argument for a improved nation that appeals not just to idealists, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the British people.