🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his political party as a unique occurrence that has burst on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable historic moment. But this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the United States and South America, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties like his are also leading in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is leading the polls for both the presidential race and parliament. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Italian political group are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, motivated by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to overthrow the international rule of law, weaken human rights and undermine multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave exposes a new and unavoidable truth that democrats overlook at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has replaced neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russian primacy”, “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 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.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to understand the root causes, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this new age of nationalism. It starts with a broadly shared perception that a globalization that was open but not inclusive has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

Over the past ten years, political figures have not only been slow to respond to the millions who feel left out and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, transitioning from a US-dominated era once led by the US to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means open commerce is being replaced by trade barriers. 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 restrictions on international commerce, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, sinking international cooperation to its weakest point since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the world's population. In a poll conducted 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 inclined to embrace international cooperation than many of the officials who rule over them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the global population (even if a quarter in the United States currently) who either feel coexistence between ethnic and religious groups is impossible or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

But there are another 21% at the opposite extreme, 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”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the global public are somewhere in between: 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 never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “others”, opponents always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle favor a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their local area or community boundaries? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will support humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of selflessness, backing emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates empathize of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

A second group comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for international development are used effectively. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through ensuring them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

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 worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is presented 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 cooperate out of need or if we have a need to cooperate, the response is both.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome current pessimistic, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we champion a optimistic, outward-looking and inclusive patriotism that responds to people’s need for community and connects to their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, illegal immigration is currently the biggest national issue – and it's clear that it must quickly be managed effectively – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the public are even more worried by 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 bad, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “broken” 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 pointed out, the far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. Nigel Farage praised a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the largest reductions in public services. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not fix downtrodden communities but ravage them, create social division and wreck any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be ill, impaired, poor or vulnerable. Continually 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 shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are indicating all over the west is that they want their governments to rebuild our financial systems and our communities. “The party” and its international partners 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 highlighting the party's contradictions by presenting a case for a better Britain that resonates not just to visionaries, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the British people.