🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his political party as a distinct occurrence that has exploded on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable historic moment. However this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the US and South America, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties like his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, 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 France's leader, is leading the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, inspired by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, aiming to overthrow the global legal order, diminish fundamental freedoms and undermine multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge reveals a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has replaced economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “Chinese emphasis”, “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 violations 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

Crucial to understand the root causes, widespread globally, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. It begins with a widely felt sense 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 left out and left behind, but also to the changing balance of world economic influence, transitioning from a US-dominated era once led by the US to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means open commerce is being replaced by trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving economic decisions, and already more than 100 countries are running mercantilist policies characterized by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on international commerce, investment 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 find hope in the common sense of the world's population. In a poll conducted for a prominent organization, of thousands of individuals in 34 countries we find a clear majority are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to embrace international cooperation than many of the leaders who govern them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the global population (even if 25% in the United States currently) 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 an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders 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 somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “America first” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “our side” and the “others”, opponents always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates prefer a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A first group, 22%, will back aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of selflessness, supporting emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

Another segment comprising 22% are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for global progress are used effectively. And there is a third group, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a definite majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid if funds are used wisely but also for international measures to deal with worldwide issues, like climate crisis and disease control, as long as this case is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress 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 answer is both.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome current pessimistic, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “others” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, globally engaged and inclusive patriotism that addresses people’s desire to belong and resonates with their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while 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 worried by what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. Recently, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can overcome what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our financial system and community.

However, as the prime minister also pointed out, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. A Reform leader hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the largest reductions in government programs. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by £275bn would not fix downtrodden communities but damage them, create social division 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. Continually from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which medical facility, which school and which public service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.

Risks and Solutions

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond austerity. 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. “The party” and its global allies should be exposed day after day for policies 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 the party's contradictions by presenting a argument for a improved nation that resonates not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the British people.