🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his Reform UK party as a unique phenomenon that has burst on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable epochal event. But this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties like his are also ahead in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and parliament. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, inspired by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, weaken fundamental freedoms and undermine international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge reveals a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – 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 “exclusive group focus” 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.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to grasp the root causes, common to almost every country, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalization that was open but not inclusive has been a free for all that has not been fair 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 shifting dynamics of global economic power, transitioning from a unipolar world once led by the United States to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means free trade is being replaced by protectionism. 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 reshoring and friend-shoring and by bans on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, sinking international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. 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 34 countries we find a clear majority are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda 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 a minority of the global population (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups is impossible or have a zero-sum mindset 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 opposite extreme, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see international collaboration through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority of the world's citizens are moderate in views: not isolated patriots, 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 always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will support humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of selflessness, backing emergency help 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 global progress are spent well. And there is a third group, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a definite majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid if funds are used wisely but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, 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 answer is both.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that demonises immigrants, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and welcoming patriotism that responds to people’s desire to belong and resonates with their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be managed effectively – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public 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, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our financial system and community.

However, as the leader also pointed out, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. A Reform leader 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 reduce public spending by £275bn would not repair struggling areas but damage them, create social division and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be ill, impaired, poor 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

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are indicating all over the west is that they want their leaders to restore our financial systems and our civic societies. “The party” and its global allies should be revealed day after day for plans that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be ahead of us, we can go beyond highlighting Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a case for a improved nation that appeals not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.