🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his political party as a distinct occurrence that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional 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 Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties like his are also leading in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure overthrew the head of government 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 French presidency and the legislature. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular party. A Hungarian political force, 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, motivated by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, aiming to overthrow the global legal order, diminish fundamental freedoms and undermine multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a recent undeniable reality that democrats 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 priorities: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” and often “my tribe first and only” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment that helps explain why the world is now composed of 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and ethnic nationalism is the force behind the breaches of global human rights standards not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Root Causes Explained

Crucial to grasp the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. It begins with a widely felt sense that a globalization that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the shifting dynamics of global economic power, transitioning from a US-dominated era once dominated by the United States to a multi-power landscape 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 giving way to trade barriers. 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 characterized by reshoring and friend-shoring and by bans on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, lowering global collaboration 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 find hope in the common sense of the global public. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to embrace international cooperation than many of the officials who govern them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the global population (even if 25% in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups is impossible 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.

However there are another 21% at the opposite extreme, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, 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 “our side” and the “them”, opponents always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Are most moderates favor a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under specific circumstances. A initial segment, 22%, will back aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates 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 international development are spent well. And there is a final category, roughly a fifth, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a definite majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid if money is well spent but also for international measures to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress the reciprocal benefits that flow to them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a need to cooperate, the answer is both.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can defeat current pessimistic, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we champion a positive, outward-looking and welcoming national pride that addresses people’s need for community and connects to their everyday worries.

Tackling Key Issues

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be managed effectively – 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. Last month, 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 “in decline” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our economy and society.

But as the prime minister also reminded us, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. Nigel Farage praised a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in public services. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not fix struggling areas but ravage them, create social division and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, needy or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which public service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetarism, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are indicating all over the west is that they want their governments to rebuild our economies and our communities. “The party” and its international partners should be revealed repeatedly for policies that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out the party's contradictions by setting out a argument for a improved nation that resonates not just to idealists, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the British people.