🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his political party as a unique occurrence that has burst on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable epochal event. However this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from India and Thailand to the United States and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties like his are also leading in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, is leading the polls for both the French presidency and the legislature. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Italian political group are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, inspired by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, seeking to overthrow the global legal order, diminish fundamental freedoms and destroy multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy ignore at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “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 ethnic nationalism is the force 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 understand the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this new age of nationalism. It starts with a broadly shared perception that a globalization that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system that has not been fair to all.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, transitioning from a US-dominated era once led by the United States to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has provoked means free trade is giving way to protectionism. Where market forces used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving economic decisions, and already more than 100 countries are running mercantilist policies marked out by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on international commerce, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, lowering international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens we can see optimism in the common sense of the world's population. In a poll conducted for a prominent organization, of thousands of individuals in 34 countries we find a significant portion are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to support international cooperation than many of the leaders who govern them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the world's people (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between ethnic and religious groups is impossible or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their nation 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 positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, 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 “us” and the “others”, adversaries always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates prefer a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their local area or community boundaries? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A first group, 22%, will support humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of selflessness, supporting disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” 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 third group, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a clear majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid 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 enlightened self-interest, and if we emphasize the reciprocal benefits 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 need to cooperate, the response is each.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling nationalism that vilifies immigrants, outsiders and “others” as long as we champion a optimistic, globally engaged and welcoming patriotism that responds to people’s need for community 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 it's clear that it must promptly be brought under control – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the people are even more concerned about what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their own local communities. Last month, a prominent leader gave an emotional speech about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “dysfunctional” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our financial system and community.

However, as the prime minister also pointed out, 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 the 1980s. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the largest reductions in public services. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not repair downtrodden communities but damage them, create social division and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, poor or at-risk. Continually from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which public service will be the first to be cut or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are indicating all over the west is that they want their governments to restore our financial systems and our civic societies. “The party” and its international partners should be revealed repeatedly for policies that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a argument for a improved nation that appeals not just to idealists, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.