🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader depicts his Reform UK party as a unique phenomenon that has exploded on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable historic moment. 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 Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties like his are also leading in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency and the legislature. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy 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 anti-internationalists, inspired by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to overthrow the global legal order, diminish human rights and undermine multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave exposes a new and unavoidable truth that democrats overlook at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has supplanted neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russian primacy”, “group priority” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment that helps explain why the world is now composed of 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and ethnic nationalism 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 understand the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalization that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the millions who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, moving us from a unipolar world once led by the US to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means free trade is being replaced by protectionism. Where economics used to drive government policies, 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 international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, sinking global collaboration 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 common sense of the global public. In a poll conducted for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in 34 countries we find a significant portion are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to support international cooperation than many of the leaders who govern them.

Globally 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 diverse communities is impossible or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

But there are an additional group at the other end, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through free commerce as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “others”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under specific circumstances. A initial segment, about a fifth, will support aid efforts to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of selflessness, backing emergency help 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 public funds for global progress are used effectively. And there is a third group, 21%, 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 peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a definite majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for international measures to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress the mutual advantages that flow to them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the answer is each.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often forceful and controlling nationalism that vilifies newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we champion a positive, globally engaged and welcoming patriotism 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 quickly be managed effectively – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public are even more concerned about what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their own local communities. Last month, the UK Prime Minister gave an emotional speech about how what’s good about Britain can drive out 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 financial system and community.

However, as the leader also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. A Reform leader praised a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was intended – the largest reductions in public services. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not fix struggling areas but ravage them, create social division and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, needy or at-risk. Continually from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be cut or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond austerity. What the public are indicating all over the west is that they want their governments to rebuild our economies and our communities. “The party” and its international partners should be exposed day after day for policies that would devastate 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 appeals not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the British people.