🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his Reform UK party as a unique occurrence that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional epochal event. But this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from India and Thailand to the United States and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties like his are also leading in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure toppled prime minister 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 far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, weaken fundamental freedoms and undermine multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave exposes a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy overlook at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has replaced economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” and often “my tribe first and only” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment that helps explain why the world is now composed of many autocratic states and fewer democratic ones, and this ideology is the driver behind the violations of global human rights standards not just by one nation in conflict 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 fuelled this recent nationalist era. It begins with a widely felt sense that a globalization that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a unregulated system 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 left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, moving us from a unipolar world once dominated by the US to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means open commerce is giving way to protectionism. Where economics used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving economic decisions, and already more than 100 countries are running mercantilist policies marked out by reshoring and friend-shoring and by bans on cross-border trade, investment and knowledge sharing, lowering international cooperation to its weakest point since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the global public. 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 willing to support global teamwork than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Across the world there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of staunch global cooperation opponents representing 16.5% of the world's people (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is impossible 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 other end, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

The vast majority of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict 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 obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their garden gate or city wall? Yes, under certain conditions. A first group, 22%, will back humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of selflessness, backing emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates empathize 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 public funds for international development are spent well. And there is a third group, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them basic necessities or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a clear majority can be constructed not just for humanitarian aid if funds are used wisely but also for international measures to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency 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 questioned whether we work together from necessity or if we have a need to cooperate, the response is both.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can overcome today’s negative, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that vilifies immigrants, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a positive, globally engaged and welcoming national pride that responds to people’s need for community and connects to their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and it's clear that it must quickly 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 spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can overcome what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “broken” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our economy and society.

However, as the prime minister also reminded us, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. Nigel Farage hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. But he would also implement a similar plan – 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, create social division and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be ill, disabled, needy or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which school and which public service will be the first to be cut or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond austerity. What the public are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to rebuild our economies and our communities. “Reform” and its global allies should be exposed repeatedly for policies that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be ahead of us, we can go beyond highlighting the party's contradictions by setting out a argument for a better Britain that appeals not just to idealists, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.