🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his Reform UK party as a distinct occurrence that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional epochal event. But this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the United States and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties like his are also leading in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and the legislature. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party is currently the most popular party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Brothers of Italy are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, motivated by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the global legal order, diminish human rights and undermine multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy ignore at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has replaced economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “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 many autocratic states and fewer democratic ones, and ethnic nationalism is the force behind the violations of international human rights law not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

Crucial to understand the root causes, widespread globally, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalization that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system that has not been fair to all.

Over the past ten years, political figures have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, transitioning from a US-dominated era once dominated by the United States to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means free trade is being replaced by protectionism. 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 reshoring and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on cross-border trade, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, sinking global collaboration to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

But all is not lost. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens 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 more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to support international cooperation 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 the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups is unattainable or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

But there are another 21% at the opposite extreme, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a positive sum win-win, 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 devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “us” and the “them”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Are most moderates prefer a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will back humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of altruism, backing disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

A second group comprising 22% are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for international development are used effectively. And there is a final category, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a definite majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is argued 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 each.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome today’s negative, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and welcoming patriotism that responds to people’s desire to belong and connects to their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the Western nations, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and it's clear that it must quickly be brought under control – the public sentiment data also tell us that the people are even more concerned about what is happening in their own lives and within their immediate neighborhoods. Last month, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can overcome what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “broken” and “deteriorating” 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 extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. A Reform leader praised a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was planned – the largest reductions in government programs. Reform’s plan to reduce public spending by £275bn 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, poor or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, Reform should be asked which hospital, which school and which public service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their leaders to restore our financial systems 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 greatest achievements could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a argument for a improved nation that resonates not just to idealists, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.