🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a unique phenomenon that has burst on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable historic moment. But this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the United States and South America, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also ahead in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is leading the polls for both the presidential race and parliament. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to overthrow the global legal order, weaken human rights and undermine multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave exposes a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has replaced neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” and often “my tribe first and only” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism 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 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.

Root Causes Explained

Crucial to understand the root causes, common to almost every country, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, political figures have not only been slow to respond to the millions who feel left out and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of global economic power, moving us from a unipolar world once led by the US to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has provoked means open commerce is giving way to 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 protectionist strategies marked out by reshoring and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, sinking global collaboration to its weakest point since the post-war period.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it solidifies we can find hope in the pragmatism of the world's population. In a poll conducted 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 willing to embrace international cooperation than many of the officials who govern them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the global population (even if a quarter in the United States currently) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is unattainable 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 committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the global public are somewhere in between: 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”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates favor a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Yes, under specific circumstances. A initial segment, about a fifth, will back aid efforts to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of altruism, backing emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists feel the pain of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

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 final category, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse cooperation 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

Thus a definite majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid if funds are used wisely but also for international measures to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this case is argued on grounds of wise personal benefit, 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 necessity for collaboration, the answer is each.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome today’s negative, isolated and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that demonises immigrants, foreigners and “others” as long as we champion a positive, globally engaged and inclusive patriotism that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry 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 people are even more worried by what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their own local communities. Recently, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can drive out what’s negative, 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 financial system and community.

However, as the prime minister also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. Nigel Farage hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was planned – the largest reductions in public services. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not fix downtrodden communities but damage them, turn citizen against citizen and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be ill, impaired, needy or at-risk. 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 cut or shut down.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetarism, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are indicating all over the west is that they want their leaders to restore our economies and our communities. “The party” and its global allies should be revealed repeatedly 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 pointing out the party's contradictions by presenting a argument for a better Britain that appeals not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the British people.