🔗 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 exceptional historic moment. But this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties like his are also leading in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another French prime minister, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and parliament. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party is currently the most popular party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the global legal order, diminish fundamental freedoms and destroy multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy ignore at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has replaced economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russian primacy”, “my tribe first” and often “my tribe first and only” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism that helps explain why the world is now composed of 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and this ideology 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, widespread globally, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. 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 delayed in addressing to the many people who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the changing balance of world economic influence, transitioning from a US-dominated era once dominated by the US to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has provoked means open commerce is being replaced by trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving economic decisions, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies marked out by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by restrictions on cross-border trade, investment and technology transfer, lowering international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The situation is not fixed, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the world's population. In a poll conducted for a major foundation, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to embrace global teamwork than many of the officials who govern them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing 16.5% of the global population (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is impossible 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.

However there are another 21% at the opposite extreme, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see international collaboration through free commerce as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

The vast majority of the global public are moderate in views: not isolated patriots, as “America first” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are patriotic 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 unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle favor a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their garden gate or city wall? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A initial segment, about a fifth, will support humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of selflessness, supporting emergency help for affected areas. 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 used effectively. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a clear majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is presented on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we stress 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 both.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that demonises immigrants, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, globally engaged and inclusive patriotism that addresses people’s need for community and connects to their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – 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, the UK Prime Minister gave an emotional speech about how what’s good about Britain can overcome 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 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 the 1980s. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not repair downtrodden communities but damage them, create social division and destroy any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, poor or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are indicating all over the Western world 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 ahead of us, we can go beyond pointing out the party's contradictions by setting out a case for a better Britain that resonates not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.