🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his political party as a unique occurrence that has burst on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional epochal event. However this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the US and South America, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also leading in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure overthrew the head of government Petr Fiala. A French political group, 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 the German nation, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular 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 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 fundamental freedoms and undermine multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats ignore at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “group priority” 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 ethnic nationalism is the force behind the violations of international human rights law not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

Crucial to grasp the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It starts with a broadly shared perception that a globalization that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has not been fair to all.

For more than a decade, political figures have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel left out and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, 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 power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means free trade is being replaced by trade barriers. Where economics 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 ally-focused trade and by bans on cross-border trade, foreign funding and technology transfer, lowering international cooperation to its weakest point since the post-war period.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

But all is not lost. The cement is still wet, and even as it hardens 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 dozens of nations we find a clear majority are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to embrace international cooperation than many of the leaders who govern them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the global population (even if a quarter in the United States currently) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is impossible 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.

However there are another 21% at the other end, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see international collaboration through free commerce as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “America first” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “them”, adversaries permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their local area or city wall? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A initial segment, 22%, will support aid efforts to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of altruism, backing emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates empathize of others and have faith in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising 22% are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for global progress are spent well. And there is a final category, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a definite majority can be constructed not just for emergency assistance if funds are used wisely but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like climate crisis and disease control, as long as this case is argued on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress the mutual advantages that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long wondered 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 reverse the xenophobic tide: we can defeat current pessimistic, isolated and often forceful and controlling nationalism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we champion a optimistic, outward-looking and welcoming patriotism that responds to people’s need for community and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be brought under control – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the people are even more worried by what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. Last month, a prominent leader gave an emotional speech about how what’s good about Britain can drive out what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our financial system and society.

But as the leader also reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. A Reform leader hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was intended – the largest reductions in public services. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not fix downtrodden communities but ravage 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, poor or at-risk. Every day 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 shut down.

Risks and Solutions

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetarism, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their leaders to restore our economies and our communities. “Reform” and its international partners should be exposed 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 pointing out the party's contradictions by presenting a argument for a improved nation that resonates not just to idealists, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.