🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a unique occurrence that has burst on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable epochal event. However this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the United States and South America, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also ahead in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, is leading 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, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Brothers of Italy are already in power, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, inspired by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, seeking to overthrow the international rule of law, diminish fundamental freedoms and undermine international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats overlook at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has replaced neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “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 this ideology is the driver behind the violations of global human rights standards not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to grasp the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It begins with a widely felt sense that a globalization that was open but not inclusive has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, political figures 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 led by the United States to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means open commerce is giving way to protectionism. Where market forces used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies characterized by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by bans on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, lowering global collaboration 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 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 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 global population (even if 25% 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 nation do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

But there are another 21% at the other end, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see international collaboration through free commerce 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 moderate in views: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, 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 “our side” and the “others”, adversaries permanently set apart from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Are most moderates prefer a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under certain conditions. A initial segment, about a fifth, will back aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of selflessness, supporting disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for international development are used effectively. And there is a final category, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a definite majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid if funds are used wisely but also for international measures to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we emphasize the mutual advantages 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 response is each.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that vilifies newcomers, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, outward-looking and inclusive national pride that addresses people’s need for community and connects to their immediate concerns.

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 public are even more concerned about what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. 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 “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 pointed out, the far right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. A Reform leader praised a disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in public services. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not repair struggling areas but damage them, turn citizen against citizen and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be ill, disabled, needy or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which medical facility, which school and which government service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to rebuild our financial systems and our civic societies. “The party” and its international partners should be revealed repeatedly for plans that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out the party's contradictions by setting out a argument for a improved nation that resonates not just to visionaries, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.