🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his political party as a unique occurrence that has exploded on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable epochal event. However this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the US and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigration, 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 the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and parliament. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, 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 opponents of global cooperation, inspired by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, aiming to overthrow the global legal order, weaken fundamental freedoms and undermine multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge exposes a new and unavoidable truth that democrats overlook at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” 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 driver behind the violations of international human rights law not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to understand the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It begins with a widely felt sense that a globalization that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system that has not been fair to all.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the shifting dynamics of global economic power, moving us from a unipolar world once dominated by the US to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked 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 reshoring and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, sinking international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

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 common sense of the world's population. In a recent survey 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 willing to support global teamwork than many of the officials who govern them.

Across the world there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the global population (even if 25% in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups is impossible or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the cost 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 free commerce as a positive sum win-win, or are what an influential thinker calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

The vast majority of the world's citizens are moderate in views: 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 permanent conflict between the “our side” and the “them”, 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 obligations beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under certain conditions. A first group, about a fifth, will support aid efforts to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of altruism, backing emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for global progress are spent well. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, personally motivated collaborators, 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 safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a definite majority can be constructed not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with global problems, like climate crisis and disease control, as long as this case is argued 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 work internationally shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat current pessimistic, isolated and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that demonises newcomers, foreigners and “others” as long as we champion a positive, globally engaged and inclusive patriotism that responds to people’s need for community and connects to their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the west, 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 own lives and within their own local communities. Recently, the UK Prime Minister gave an emotional speech about how what’s good about Britain can drive out what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our financial system and society.

But as the prime minister also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. Nigel Farage praised a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. 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 struggling areas but ravage them, turn citizen against citizen and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be ill, disabled, needy or vulnerable. Continually from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which school and which government service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their leaders to restore our financial systems and our communities. “The party” and its global allies should be exposed repeatedly for policies that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a argument for a better Britain that appeals not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.