🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his political party as a distinct occurrence that has exploded on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional epochal event. However this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties like his are also leading in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down yet another French prime minister, is leading the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party 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 Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, inspired by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, seeking to overthrow the global legal order, weaken fundamental freedoms and destroy international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats ignore at our peril: 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”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment 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 violations of international human rights law not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

Crucial to grasp the root causes, common to almost every country, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It begins with a broadly shared perception 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 delayed in addressing to the millions who feel left out 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 open commerce is being replaced by trade barriers. Where economics used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies marked out by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by bans on cross-border trade, investment and technology transfer, sinking global collaboration to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can find hope in the common sense of the world's population. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of thousands of individuals in 34 countries we find a significant portion are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to embrace global teamwork than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Across the world there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the world's people (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups is unattainable or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

However there are an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see international collaboration through open trade as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what an influential thinker calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

The vast majority of the global public are moderate in views: not isolated patriots, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “our side” and the “others”, opponents always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under certain conditions. A first group, 22%, will support aid efforts to relieve suffering and are prepared 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 bigger than themselves.

Another segment comprising 22% are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for international development are used effectively. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a clear majority can be constructed not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this argument is presented on grounds of enlightened self-interest, 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 work together from necessity or if we have a need to cooperate, the response is both.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often forceful and controlling nationalism that vilifies newcomers, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we champion a positive, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that addresses people’s desire to belong and resonates with their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be managed effectively – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public are even more concerned about what is happening in their own lives and within their immediate neighborhoods. Last month, the UK Prime Minister gave an emotional speech about how what’s positive in the nation can drive out what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “dysfunctional” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our economy and community.

But as the prime minister also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. A Reform leader hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not repair downtrodden communities but damage them, create social division and destroy any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, poor or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, 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 inhumane, more harmful even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are telling us all over the west is that they want their leaders to restore our financial systems and our civic societies. “The party” and its international partners should be exposed repeatedly for policies 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 resonates not just to idealists, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.