🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his Reform UK party as a unique 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 India and Thailand to the United States and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also leading in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš overthrew the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is leading 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. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Austrian 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 far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the global legal order, diminish human rights and undermine international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge reveals a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy ignore at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has replaced neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “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 this ideology is the driver behind the violations of international human rights law not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to grasp the root causes, widespread globally, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It starts 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 changing balance of world economic influence, moving us from a US-dominated era once dominated by the US to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means free trade is giving way to trade barriers. Where economics used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies marked out by reshoring and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on cross-border trade, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, lowering global collaboration to its weakest point since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens we can find hope in the common sense of the world's population. In a recent survey for a major foundation, of 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a clear majority are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to embrace international cooperation than many of the officials who govern them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the world's people (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 an additional group at the other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see international collaboration through free commerce as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the global public are moderate in views: not isolated patriots, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “others”, 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 certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will back humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of selflessness, supporting disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists feel the pain of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for international development are spent well. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a clear majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if funds are used wisely but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this argument is argued 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 wondered whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the answer is both.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome today’s negative, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that demonises newcomers, foreigners and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and inclusive patriotism that responds to people’s need for community and connects to their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and it's clear that it must quickly be managed effectively – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public are even more worried by what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. Recently, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can overcome what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “dysfunctional” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our economy and society.

However, as the leader also pointed out, the far right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. Nigel Farage praised a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the largest reductions in government programs. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not fix 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 ill, disabled, needy or at-risk. Continually from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which hospital, which school and which government service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to restore our financial systems and our communities. “Reform” and its international partners should be exposed day after day for policies that would devastate 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 presenting a case for a improved nation that appeals not just to idealists, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the British people.