🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his Reform UK party as a distinct phenomenon that has burst on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable epochal event. But this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the US and South America, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also ahead in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is leading the polls for both the French presidency and the legislature. In the German nation, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) 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 Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, motivated by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, aiming to overthrow the international rule of law, diminish human rights and undermine international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave exposes a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy ignore at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has replaced economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism that helps explain why the world is now composed of many autocratic states and fewer democratic ones, and this ideology is the force behind the violations 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 root causes, widespread globally, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It starts with a broadly shared perception that a globalization that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a unregulated system that has not been fair to all.

Over the past ten years, leaders have not only been delayed in addressing to the millions who feel left out and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era once dominated by the US to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has provoked means free trade is being replaced by trade barriers. 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 friend-shoring and by restrictions on cross-border trade, foreign funding and technology transfer, sinking global collaboration to its weakest point since the post-war period.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

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 world's population. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a clear majority are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to support global teamwork than many of the officials who govern them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the global population (even if a quarter in the United States currently) who either feel coexistence between ethnic and religious groups is impossible or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the cost 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 open trade 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 isolated patriots, as “America first” 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 irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates favor a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their garden gate or city wall? Yes, under certain conditions. A initial segment, about a fifth, will support aid efforts to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of altruism, backing disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” 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 international development are spent well. And there is a final category, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a definite 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 disease control, as long as this case is presented 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 questioned whether we work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the answer is both.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can defeat today’s negative, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we champion a optimistic, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that responds to people’s desire to belong and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and it's clear that it must quickly 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. Recently, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can drive out what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “dysfunctional” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our financial system and society.

But as the leader also pointed out, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. Nigel Farage hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not repair struggling areas but damage them, create social division and wreck any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be ill, impaired, poor or at-risk. Continually from now on, and in every electoral district, Reform should be asked which hospital, which school and which public service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their governments to rebuild our financial systems and our civic societies. “The party” and its international partners should be exposed repeatedly for plans that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out the party's contradictions by presenting a argument for a better Britain that resonates not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.