🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his political party as a distinct occurrence that has exploded on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable epochal event. But this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from India and Thailand to the United States and South America, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure overthrew 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 French presidency and parliament. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in power, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, motivated by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, diminish fundamental freedoms and destroy international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave exposes a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has supplanted neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russian primacy”, “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 ethnic nationalism is the driver behind the violations of international human rights law not just by one nation in conflict 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 driven 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 been unjust to all.

Over the past ten years, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the millions who feel left out and left behind, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, transitioning from a unipolar world once dominated by the United States to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means open commerce 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 more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies marked out by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by bans on international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, sinking international cooperation to its weakest point since the post-war period.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

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 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a clear majority are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to support global teamwork than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the world's people (even if a quarter in the United States currently) who either feel coexistence between ethnic and religious groups is impossible 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.

But there are an additional group at the other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see international collaboration through open trade as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are patriotic 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 irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates prefer a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or city wall? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A initial segment, about a fifth, will support humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of selflessness, backing disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists feel the pain of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising 22% are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are spent well. And there is a third group, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a definite majority can be constructed not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like climate crisis and disease control, as long as this case is argued on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we emphasize the reciprocal benefits that flow to them and their own country. And thus for those who have long wondered whether we work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the response is both.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat current pessimistic, isolated and often forceful and controlling nationalism that demonises immigrants, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and inclusive national pride that responds to people’s desire to belong and connects to their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be brought under control – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the people are even more concerned about what is happening in their own lives and within their own local communities. Last month, a prominent leader gave an emotional speech 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 commonly cited when asked about both our economy and community.

However, as the prime minister also reminded us, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. Nigel Farage hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by £275bn would not repair struggling areas 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, poor or at-risk. Continually from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which medical facility, which school and which public service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

Risks and Solutions

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond austerity. What the public are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their governments to rebuild our economies and our civic societies. “Reform” and its global allies should be revealed day after day 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 highlighting Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a case for a improved nation that appeals not just to visionaries, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the British people.