🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his political party as a distinct phenomenon that has burst on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional historic moment. But this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the US and South America, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also ahead in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another French prime minister, is leading the polls for both the French presidency and the legislature. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party is currently the most popular party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition 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 staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, motivated by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, seeking to overthrow the international rule of law, weaken human rights and undermine multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave exposes a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy overlook at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has replaced economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “group priority” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism that helps explain why the world is now composed of 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and this ideology is the force behind the violations of international human rights law 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 understand the root causes, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. It starts with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has not been fair 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, moving us from a US-dominated era once dominated by the United States 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 free trade is giving way to trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies characterized by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on international commerce, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, sinking international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

However, there is hope. 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 more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to support international cooperation than many of the officials who govern them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the world's people (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel peaceful living between diverse communities is unattainable or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

However there are an additional group at the other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see international collaboration through free commerce as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what an influential thinker calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the global public are moderate in views: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. 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.

Are most moderates prefer a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A first group, 22%, will support aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of altruism, backing emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists empathize of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are spent well. And there is a final category, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a definite majority can be constructed not just for emergency assistance if funds are used wisely but also for international measures to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this case is argued on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress 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 need to cooperate, the response is both.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that vilifies newcomers, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, outward-looking and welcoming patriotism that addresses people’s desire to belong and connects to their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be managed effectively – 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 own local communities. 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 western countries, “broken” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our economy and community.

But as the prime minister also reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. Nigel Farage hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in public services. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not repair struggling areas but ravage them, create social division and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, poor or at-risk. 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 cut or shut down.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are indicating all over the west is that they want their leaders to rebuild our financial systems and our civic societies. “Reform” and its international partners should be exposed repeatedly for plans that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be ahead of us, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a case for a better Britain that resonates not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.