🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader depicts his Reform UK party as a unique phenomenon that has exploded on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional historic moment. But this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the United States and South America, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also leading in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency and the legislature. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Italian political group are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, seeking to dethrone the global legal order, diminish human rights and undermine multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge reveals a recent undeniable reality that democrats overlook at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “group priority” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism 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 international human rights law not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

Crucial to grasp the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It starts with a widely felt sense that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

Over the past ten years, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the shifting dynamics 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 system of international law to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means open commerce is being replaced by protectionism. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies marked out by reshoring and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on cross-border trade, investment and technology transfer, sinking international cooperation to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, and even as it hardens we can find hope in the pragmatism of the world's population. In a recent survey for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to support international cooperation than many of the officials who rule over them.

Across the world there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the world's people (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel coexistence 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 other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through free commerce as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what an influential thinker calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the world's citizens are moderate in views: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “America first” 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”, adversaries always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their local area or city wall? Yes, under specific circumstances. A first group, 22%, will support humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists feel the pain of others and have faith in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for global progress are used effectively. And there is a third group, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them basic necessities or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a clear majority can be constructed not just for humanitarian aid if money is well spent but also for international measures to deal with global problems, like climate crisis and disease control, as long as this case is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we stress the mutual advantages 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 response is each.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome today’s negative, isolated and often forceful and controlling nationalism that demonises immigrants, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we champion a optimistic, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that addresses people’s desire to belong and connects to their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and it's clear that it must promptly be brought under control – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public are even more worried by what is happening in their own lives and within their own local communities. Last month, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome what’s bad, 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 economy and community.

But as the prime minister also pointed out, the far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. A Reform leader 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 government programs. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not repair downtrodden communities but ravage them, create social division and wreck any spirit of solidarity. 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, the party should be asked which medical facility, which school and which public service will be the first to be cut or shut down.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are telling us all over the Western world 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 plans that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be in the future, we can go beyond highlighting the party's contradictions by presenting a argument for a better Britain that resonates not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.