🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a unique occurrence that has burst on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional epochal event. However this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties like his are also leading in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency 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 Brothers of Italy 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 anti-internationalists, motivated by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, aiming to overthrow the international rule of law, weaken human rights and destroy international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave exposes a new and unavoidable truth that democrats overlook at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has replaced economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russian primacy”, “group priority” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism that helps explain why the world is now composed of many autocratic states and fewer democratic ones, and this ideology is the force behind the violations of global human rights standards not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

Crucial to grasp the root causes, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this new age of nationalism. 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.

Over the past ten years, political figures have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel left out and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, moving us from a US-dominated era once dominated by the United States to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, 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 market forces used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running mercantilist policies marked out by reshoring and friend-shoring and by bans on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, lowering global collaboration to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

But all is not lost. The situation is not fixed, and even as it solidifies we can find hope in the common sense of the world's population. In a recent survey for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to support global teamwork than many of the officials who rule over them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the global population (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel peaceful living between diverse communities 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 opposite extreme, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what an influential thinker calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the global public are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, 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 “us” and the “them”, adversaries always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle favor a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A first group, 22%, will back aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of selflessness, backing disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates empathize of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for global progress are used effectively. And there is a third group, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse cooperation 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.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a definite 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 environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, 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 both.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can overcome current pessimistic, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that demonises immigrants, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and inclusive national pride that addresses people’s desire to belong and resonates with their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry 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 people are even more worried by what is happening in their own lives and within their immediate neighborhoods. Last month, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can drive out what’s negative, 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 society.

But as the prime minister also pointed out, the far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. A Reform leader hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was intended – the largest reductions in public services. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by £275bn would not fix downtrodden communities but damage them, turn citizen against citizen and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, poor or at-risk. Continually from now on, and in every constituency, 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 neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond austerity. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their governments to restore our financial systems and our communities. “Reform” and its global allies should be exposed repeatedly for policies that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a argument for a improved nation that resonates not just to idealists, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.