🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader depicts his Reform UK party as a unique phenomenon that has exploded on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable historic moment. But this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the US and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties like his are also ahead in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš toppled the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, is leading the polls for both the presidential race and the legislature. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, inspired by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, weaken fundamental freedoms and destroy multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave exposes a recent undeniable reality that democrats ignore at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has replaced neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “group priority” and often “my tribe first and only” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment 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 violations of global human rights standards not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

It is important to grasp the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It begins with a widely felt sense that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a unregulated system 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 changing balance of global economic power, moving us from a unipolar world once led by the US to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means open commerce is giving way to trade barriers. Where economics used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already more than 100 countries are running mercantilist policies characterized by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, sinking global collaboration to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the world's population. 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 willing to support global teamwork than many of the officials who govern them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the world's people (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities 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 an additional group at the other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what an influential thinker calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

The vast majority of the global public are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, as “America first” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “us” and the “them”, adversaries permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates prefer a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will back aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of selflessness, backing emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists empathize of others and have faith in something larger than their own interests.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for global progress are used effectively. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

So a clear majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid if funds are used wisely but also for international measures to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this case is presented on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we emphasize the mutual advantages 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 response is both.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can overcome today’s negative, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that vilifies immigrants, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their everyday worries.

Tackling Key Issues

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be managed effectively – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the public are even more worried by what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. Last month, a prominent leader spoke movingly 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 economy and community.

But as the prime minister also pointed out, the far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. Nigel Farage praised a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also implement a comparable strategy – what was planned – the largest reductions in government programs. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not repair 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 sick, impaired, needy or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which medical facility, which school and which public service will be the first to be cut or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are telling us all over the west is that they want their governments to restore our economies and our civic societies. “The party” and its global allies should be revealed repeatedly for policies that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be in the future, we can go beyond highlighting Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a case for a better Britain that resonates not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.