🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader depicts his political party as a unique phenomenon that has burst on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable epochal event. But this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the US and South America, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and the legislature. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the leading party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Italian political group are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the global legal order, weaken fundamental freedoms and undermine multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats ignore at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has supplanted economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “group priority” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment that helps explain why the world is now composed of many autocratic states and fewer democratic ones, and this ideology is the driver 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.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

It is important to grasp the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It starts with a widely felt sense 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, leaders have not only been delayed in addressing to the millions who feel left out and marginalized, but also to the changing balance of world economic influence, transitioning from a US-dominated era once led by the United States to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism 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 financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running mercantilist policies characterized by reshoring and ally-focused trade and by bans on cross-border trade, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, sinking international cooperation to its weakest point since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the world's population. In a poll conducted for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to support global teamwork than many of the leaders who govern them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the world's people (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is impossible or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

However there are an additional group at the other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through free commerce as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

The vast majority of the world's citizens are moderate in views: 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 always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Are most moderates favor a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their local area or community boundaries? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A first group, 22%, will support humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of altruism, backing emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists empathize of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for international development are used effectively. And there is a final category, roughly a fifth, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a definite majority can be constructed not just for humanitarian aid if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with global problems, like climate crisis and disease control, as long as this case is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, 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 work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the response is both.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome today’s negative, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling nationalism that vilifies immigrants, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we champion a positive, globally engaged and welcoming patriotism that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the biggest national issue – and it's clear that it must promptly be brought under control – 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. Last month, a prominent leader gave an emotional speech about how what’s positive in the nation can drive out what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “broken” and “in decline” 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 ending them. Nigel Farage hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since the 1980s. But he would also implement a comparable strategy – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in public services. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by a huge sum would not fix downtrodden communities but damage them, turn citizen against citizen and wreck any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, poor or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which public service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are telling us all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to rebuild our financial systems and our communities. “Reform” and its international partners should be exposed day after day for policies that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be ahead of us, we can go beyond highlighting Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting 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.