🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader depicts his Reform UK party as a distinct phenomenon that has exploded on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable historic moment. However this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the US and South America, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also ahead in the public surveys.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, 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 leading the polls for both the French presidency and the legislature. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular party. A Hungarian political force, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Italian political group are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, aiming to overthrow the international rule of law, weaken fundamental freedoms and undermine multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge exposes a recent undeniable reality that democrats ignore at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has supplanted economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “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 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and ethnic nationalism is the force behind the violations of global human rights standards not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to grasp the root causes, common to almost every country, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It begins with a widely felt sense 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, political figures have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, transitioning from a US-dominated era once led by the United States to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has incited means open commerce is giving way to trade barriers. Where economics used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism 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 bans on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, sinking global collaboration to its weakest point since the post-war period.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens we can find hope 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 clear majority are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to support international cooperation than many of the officials who rule over them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the global population (even if a quarter in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between diverse communities is unattainable 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 international collaboration through free commerce as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what an influential thinker calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, as “America first” 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 “them”, adversaries always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A first group, about a fifth, will back humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of altruism, supporting disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists feel the pain of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.

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 third group, roughly a fifth, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So 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 disease control, as long as this case is presented on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we emphasize the mutual advantages that flow to them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the response is each.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that vilifies newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we champion a optimistic, globally engaged and welcoming patriotism that addresses people’s desire to belong and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be managed effectively – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public are even more concerned about what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. Last month, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can drive out 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 community.

But as the leader also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. A Reform leader praised a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since the 1980s. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was intended – the largest reductions in public services. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not fix downtrodden communities but ravage them, create social division and destroy any sense of unity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be ill, disabled, poor or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, Reform should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be cut or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their leaders to restore our economies and our civic societies. “The party” and its global allies should be revealed day after day for plans that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be ahead of us, we can go beyond highlighting the party's contradictions by setting out a argument for a improved nation that resonates not just to idealists, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.