🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his Reform UK party as a unique phenomenon that has burst on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional epochal event. But this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from India and Thailand to the US and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties like his are also leading in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš overthrew the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another French prime minister, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, inspired by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, seeking to dethrone the international rule of law, weaken human rights and undermine international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge exposes a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy ignore at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has supplanted 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 “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism 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 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

It is important to understand 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 free for all that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been delayed in addressing to the millions who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the changing balance of world economic influence, moving us from a unipolar world once led by the US to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means free trade is being replaced by trade barriers. Where economics used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies characterized by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by restrictions on international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, lowering international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the global public. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to support global teamwork than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Across the world there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the world's people (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between ethnic and religious groups is unattainable 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 another 21% at the other end, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see international collaboration through free commerce as a positive sum win-win, or are what an influential thinker calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the global public 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 never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “them”, opponents always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates prefer a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their local area or city wall? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A first group, 22%, will back aid efforts to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists empathize of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for global progress are spent well. And there is a final category, 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.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a definite majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid if funds are used wisely but also for global action 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 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 need to cooperate, the answer is both.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can defeat current pessimistic, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling nationalism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, outward-looking and welcoming national pride that addresses people’s desire to belong and resonates with their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and it's clear that it must promptly be managed effectively – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the public are even more concerned about what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their own local communities. Last month, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can drive out what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “dysfunctional” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our economy and society.

However, as the leader also reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. A Reform leader hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since the 1980s. 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 fix downtrodden communities but damage them, create social division and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be ill, impaired, needy or at-risk. 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 cut or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond austerity. What the public are indicating all over the west is that they want their leaders to restore our economies and our communities. “The party” 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 ahead of us, we can go beyond highlighting the party's contradictions by setting out a argument for a better Britain that resonates not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.