🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his political party as a distinct phenomenon that has burst on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable epochal event. However this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the United States and South America, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader 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 parliament. In the German nation, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance 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 global alliance of anti-internationalists, motivated by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, aiming to overthrow the global legal order, diminish human rights and destroy multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge exposes a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has replaced neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” 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 this ideology is the force behind the breaches of global human rights standards 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

Crucial to grasp the root causes, common to almost every country, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalization that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a unregulated system that has not been fair to all.

Over the past ten years, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era once dominated by the United States to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means free trade is giving way to trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies marked out by reshoring and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on cross-border trade, foreign funding and technology transfer, lowering global collaboration to its weakest point since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can find hope in the common sense of the global public. In a poll conducted for a major foundation, of 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a significant portion are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to embrace global teamwork than many of the officials who govern them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% 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 country do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

But there are an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see international collaboration through open trade as a positive sum win-win, 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 isolated patriots, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are patriotic 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 unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle favor a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their local area or city wall? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A initial segment, about a fifth, will support aid efforts to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of selflessness, supporting disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists feel the pain of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are used effectively. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a clear majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid if money is well spent but also for international measures to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this case is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we stress 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 necessity for collaboration, the answer is both.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that responds to people’s need for community and resonates with their everyday worries.

Tackling Key Issues

And while detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and it's clear that it must promptly be brought under control – 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 own local communities. Recently, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can overcome what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “dysfunctional” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our economy and society.

But as the leader also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. Nigel Farage praised a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. But he would also implement a comparable strategy – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by £275bn would not repair downtrodden communities but ravage them, create social division and wreck any sense of unity. 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 medical facility, which educational institution and which public service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

Risks and Solutions

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetarism, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are indicating all over the west is that they want their governments to restore our economies and our communities. “Reform” and its international partners should be revealed 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 Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a argument for a improved nation that appeals not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.