🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his political party as a distinct occurrence that has exploded on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional historic moment. But this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the US and South America, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another French prime minister, is ahead 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, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Italian political group are already in power, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, seeking to overthrow the global legal order, weaken fundamental freedoms and destroy multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge reveals a recent undeniable reality that democrats ignore at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has supplanted neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “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 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 one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

It is important to understand the root causes, widespread globally, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. It begins with a broadly shared perception 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, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel left out and marginalized, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, transitioning from a unipolar world once led by the US to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has provoked means open commerce is being replaced by protectionism. Where market forces used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies marked out 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.

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 poll conducted for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in 34 countries we find a clear majority are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to support global teamwork 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 world's people (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel coexistence 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 expense of others doing badly.

But there are another 21% 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 an influential thinker calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the global public are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, 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 “our side” and the “them”, opponents always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Are most moderates prefer a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Yes, under specific circumstances. A initial segment, 22%, will support aid efforts to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of altruism, backing disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists feel the pain of others and have faith in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for global progress are used effectively. And there is a final category, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a definite majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if funds are used wisely but also for global action to deal with global problems, like climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is argued 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 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 overcome today’s negative, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and welcoming patriotism that responds to people’s need for community and resonates with their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be brought under control – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the people are even more worried by what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their own local communities. Recently, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can drive out what’s bad, 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 community.

However, as the prime minister also pointed out, the far right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. Nigel Farage praised a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was intended – the largest reductions in public services. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by £275bn would not fix struggling areas but ravage them, turn citizen against citizen and wreck any sense of unity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, needy or at-risk. Continually from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which public service will be the first to be cut or shut down.

Risks and Solutions

“Faragism” 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 restore our economies and our civic societies. “Reform” and its international partners should be exposed repeatedly for policies that would devastate 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 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.