🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader depicts his Reform UK party as a unique phenomenon that has burst on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable historic moment. But this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the United States and South America, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down 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 most popular party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Freedom party of Austria (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 like Steve Bannon, seeking to dethrone the global legal order, diminish fundamental freedoms and undermine multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave exposes a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy ignore at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has replaced neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “my tribe first” and often “my tribe first and only” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism 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 international human rights law not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

Crucial to grasp the root causes, widespread globally, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It begins with a widely felt sense that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the millions who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the changing balance of world economic influence, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the US to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has provoked means free trade is giving way to trade barriers. Where economics used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas 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 restrictions on cross-border trade, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, sinking global collaboration to its lowest ebb since 1945.

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 common sense of the global public. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to support global teamwork 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 today’s US) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is unattainable or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their nation 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 dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what an influential thinker calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, as “America first” 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 always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates prefer a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their garden gate or city wall? Yes, under specific circumstances. A initial segment, about a fifth, will back aid efforts to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of selflessness, backing disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

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%, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a clear majority can be constructed not just for humanitarian aid if funds are used wisely but also for international measures to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is argued on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we emphasize the mutual advantages that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long wondered whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the response is both.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can defeat current pessimistic, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that vilifies newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and inclusive national pride that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry is currently the top concern – and it's clear that it must promptly be managed effectively – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the people are even more concerned about what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. Last month, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “dysfunctional” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our financial system and society.

However, as the prime minister also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. A Reform leader hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. 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 £275bn would not fix downtrodden communities but ravage them, create social division and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, poor or vulnerable. Every day 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

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond austerity. What the people are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to restore our financial systems and our communities. “Reform” and its global allies should be exposed day after day for plans that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be ahead of us, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a argument for a improved nation that resonates not just to visionaries, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the British people.