🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his political party as a unique occurrence that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable epochal event. However this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the US and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties like his are also ahead in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down yet another French prime minister, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the leading party. A Hungarian political force, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Italian political group 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 global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, motivated by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, weaken human rights and destroy international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy overlook at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has replaced neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “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 many autocratic states and fewer democratic ones, and this ideology is the force behind the breaches of global human rights standards 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 underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. It starts with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system that has not been fair to all.

Over the past ten years, political figures 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, moving us from a unipolar world once led by the US to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means free trade is giving way to protectionism. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas 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 restrictions on cross-border trade, foreign funding and technology transfer, lowering global collaboration to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

But all is not lost. The situation is not fixed, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the global public. In a recent survey for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to support global teamwork than many of the officials who rule over them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the world's people (even if a quarter 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 cost of others doing badly.

However there are an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see international collaboration through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “us” and the “others”, adversaries always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Are most moderates prefer a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their garden gate or city wall? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A first group, about a fifth, will support aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of selflessness, backing disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists empathize of others and believe 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 final category, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a definite majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like climate crisis and disease control, as long as this argument is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress the reciprocal benefits that benefit 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 answer is both.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can defeat current pessimistic, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling nationalism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we champion a optimistic, outward-looking and inclusive patriotism that responds to people’s desire to belong and resonates with their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – 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 worried by what is happening in their own lives and within their own local communities. Last month, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly 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 society.

But as the leader also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. A Reform leader praised a disastrous mini-budget 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. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not repair struggling areas but ravage them, turn citizen against citizen and destroy any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, needy or at-risk. Continually from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which hospital, which school and which government service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are telling us all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to restore our economies and our communities. “The party” and its international partners should be exposed day after day for plans that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be ahead of us, we can go beyond highlighting the party's contradictions by setting out a case for a improved nation that resonates not just to idealists, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.