🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his Reform UK party as a distinct phenomenon that has exploded on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable epochal event. However this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties like his are also ahead in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In the German nation, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, 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, inspired by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, aiming to overthrow the global legal order, diminish fundamental freedoms and undermine multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy ignore at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has replaced economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “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 ethnic nationalism is the driver behind the breaches of global human rights standards not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

Crucial to grasp the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. It begins with a widely felt sense that a globalization that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a unregulated system that has been unjust to all.

Over the past ten years, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era 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 nationalist ideology that this has incited means free trade is being replaced by trade barriers. Where economics used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already more than 100 countries are running mercantilist policies characterized by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by bans on cross-border trade, investment and technology transfer, lowering global collaboration to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The situation is not fixed, and even as it solidifies we can find hope in the pragmatism of the global public. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to embrace international cooperation than many of the leaders who govern them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of staunch global cooperation opponents representing 16.5% of the global population (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is unattainable or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

But there are an additional group at the other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through free commerce as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “us” and the “others”, adversaries always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle favor a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Yes, under specific circumstances. A first group, about a fifth, will back humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of selflessness, backing emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists empathize of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising 22% are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for international development are used effectively. And there is a final category, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve 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.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a clear majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if funds are used wisely but also for international measures to deal with global problems, like climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we stress the mutual advantages that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long wondered whether we work together from necessity 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 overcome today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that vilifies newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we champion a optimistic, outward-looking and welcoming patriotism that responds to people’s need for community and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and it's clear that it must promptly be brought under control – the public sentiment data 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 bad, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our financial system and community.

However, as the leader also reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. Nigel Farage hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was planned – the largest reductions in government programs. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not repair downtrodden communities 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 sick, impaired, needy or vulnerable. Continually from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which medical facility, which school and which public service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are indicating all over the west is that they want their governments to restore our economies and our communities. “Reform” and its international partners should be revealed repeatedly for policies that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be in the future, we can go beyond highlighting Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a argument for a improved nation that appeals not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.