🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his political party as a unique phenomenon that has exploded on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable historic moment. However this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is leading the polls for both the French presidency and the legislature. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular party. A Hungarian political force, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Brothers of Italy are already in power, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, weaken fundamental freedoms and destroy international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats ignore at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “group priority” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment that helps explain why the world is now composed of 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and this ideology 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

Crucial to understand the root causes, common to almost every country, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It begins with a widely felt sense 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 millions who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, transitioning from a unipolar world once dominated by the United States to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means free trade is being replaced by trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running mercantilist policies marked out by reshoring and friend-shoring and by restrictions on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, sinking international cooperation to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Optimism in Public Opinion

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 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a clear majority are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to support global teamwork than many of the officials who govern them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the world's people (even if a quarter in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between diverse communities is unattainable or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

But there are an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see international collaboration through free commerce as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority 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 devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “our side” and the “them”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates favor a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or city wall? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A initial segment, about a fifth, will back humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates empathize of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising 22% are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any taxes paid for global progress are used effectively. And there is a final category, roughly a fifth, 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 food on the table or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a definite majority can be constructed not just for emergency assistance 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 wise personal benefit, and if we stress the mutual advantages that flow to 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 cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat current pessimistic, isolated and often forceful and controlling nationalism that vilifies immigrants, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and welcoming national pride that responds to people’s desire to belong and connects to their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt 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 own lives and within their immediate neighborhoods. Last month, the UK Prime Minister 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 frequently used when asked about both our economy and society.

But as the prime minister also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. Nigel Farage praised a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was intended – the largest reductions in public services. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not fix struggling areas but damage them, create social division and wreck any sense of unity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, poor or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which medical facility, which school and which public service will be the first to be cut or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond austerity. What the people are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to restore our financial systems and our communities. “The party” and its international partners should be exposed day after day 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 argument for a better Britain that resonates not just to idealists, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.