🔗 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 historic moment. However this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the United States and South America, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also leading in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, 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. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Brothers of Italy are already in power, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, inspired by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, seeking to overthrow the global legal order, diminish human rights and undermine multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge exposes a recent undeniable reality that democrats ignore at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has supplanted economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “India first”, “China first”, “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 ethnic nationalism is the force behind the breaches of international human rights law not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Root Causes Explained

Crucial to grasp the root causes, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this new age of nationalism. It begins with a widely felt sense that a globalization that was open but not inclusive 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 millions who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, transitioning from a unipolar world once led by the United States to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means open commerce is giving way to trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies marked out by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by bans on international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, sinking international cooperation to its weakest point since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, and even as it hardens we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the global public. In a poll conducted for a prominent organization, of 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a significant portion are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to support 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 16.5% of the world's people (even if 25% in the United States currently) who either feel coexistence between ethnic and religious groups 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.

But there are another 21% at the opposite extreme, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see international collaboration through free commerce as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the global public 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 permanent conflict between the “our side” and the “others”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates prefer a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under specific circumstances. A first group, about a fifth, will back aid efforts to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of selflessness, backing disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates empathize of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.

Another segment comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are used effectively. And there is a final category, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a clear majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if funds are used wisely but also for international measures to deal with global problems, like climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is argued on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we emphasize the reciprocal benefits that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a need to cooperate, the answer is each.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can overcome current pessimistic, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we champion a positive, outward-looking and welcoming national pride that responds to people’s desire to belong and connects to their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, illegal immigration is currently the biggest national issue – and it's clear that it must quickly be managed effectively – the public sentiment data also tell us that the people are even more concerned about what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. Recently, a prominent leader gave an emotional speech about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “dysfunctional” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our economy and society.

However, as the leader also reminded us, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. A Reform leader praised a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also implement a comparable strategy – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in public services. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not repair downtrodden communities but ravage them, turn citizen against citizen and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be ill, impaired, needy or vulnerable. Continually from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which public 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 destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their governments to rebuild our economies and our civic societies. “Reform” 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 in the future, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a argument for a improved nation that appeals not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.