🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his political party as a distinct phenomenon that has burst on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional epochal event. But this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the United States and South America, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties like his are also ahead in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš 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 presidential race and parliament. In Germany, 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 Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, seeking to dethrone the global legal order, weaken fundamental freedoms and destroy multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge reveals a recent undeniable reality that democrats ignore at great risk: 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 firsts: “America first”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “my tribe first” and often “exclusive group focus” 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 global human rights standards not just by Russia in Ukraine 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 begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive 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 many people who feel left out and marginalized, but also to the shifting dynamics of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era once dominated by the US to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means open commerce is giving way to trade barriers. Where economics used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, 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, investment and knowledge sharing, sinking international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

But all is not lost. The cement is still wet, and even as it hardens we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the global public. 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 support global teamwork than many of the leaders who govern them.

Across the world there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists 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 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.

But there are another 21% at the other end, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through free commerce as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people of the global public are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “US priority” 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 “them”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Yes, under certain conditions. A initial segment, about a fifth, will support aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists feel the pain of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising 22% are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for international development are spent well. And there is a third group, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing 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 international measures to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we emphasize 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 need to cooperate, the response is each.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the xenophobic tide: we can overcome today’s negative, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that vilifies newcomers, foreigners and “others” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, outward-looking and inclusive patriotism that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and it's clear that it must quickly be brought under control – 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 own local communities. Last month, the UK Prime Minister gave an emotional speech about how what’s positive in the nation can drive out what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “broken” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our economy and community.

But as the leader also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. Nigel Farage praised a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also implement a comparable strategy – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not repair struggling areas but ravage them, turn citizen against citizen and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, poor 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 cut or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are indicating all over the west is that they want their governments to rebuild our economies and our civic societies. “Reform” and its global allies should be exposed repeatedly for plans that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out the party's contradictions by presenting a case for a better Britain that appeals not just to idealists, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.