🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his political party as a distinct phenomenon that has burst on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable epochal event. But this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from India and Thailand to the United States and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties like his are also leading in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party is currently the most popular 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 Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, motivated by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, diminish fundamental freedoms and undermine multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave exposes a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “group priority” 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 force behind the breaches of global human rights standards not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

Crucial to grasp the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive 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 excluded and left behind, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, transitioning from a US-dominated era once dominated by the US to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has provoked means open commerce is giving way to protectionism. Where economics used to drive politics, 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, foreign funding and technology transfer, sinking international cooperation to its weakest point since the post-war period.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. 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 poll conducted for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to embrace global teamwork than many of the officials who rule over them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents 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 win-lose perspective 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 other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the world's citizens are moderate in views: not isolated patriots, 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 permanent conflict between the “us” and the “others”, opponents always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Are most moderates favor a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Yes, under specific circumstances. A first group, 22%, will back humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of altruism, supporting disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists empathize of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for global progress are spent well. And there is a final category, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them basic necessities or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a clear majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is presented on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we emphasize the reciprocal benefits that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the answer is both.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can defeat today’s negative, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling nationalism that demonises immigrants, foreigners and “others” as long as we champion a optimistic, globally engaged and welcoming national pride that addresses people’s need for community and connects to their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be managed effectively – the public sentiment data also tell us that the people are even more concerned about what is happening in their own lives and within their own local communities. Recently, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can overcome what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our financial system and society.

However, as the prime minister also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. A Reform leader praised 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 government programs. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not fix struggling areas but damage 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, needy or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to rebuild our financial systems and our communities. “The party” and its global allies should be exposed repeatedly for policies that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be ahead of us, we can go beyond pointing out the party's contradictions by setting out a argument for a better Britain that resonates not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.