🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his political party as a unique occurrence that has exploded on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional historic moment. However this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the United States and South America, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another French prime minister, is leading the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party is currently the most popular party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Italian political group are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, seeking to overthrow the global legal order, diminish fundamental freedoms and undermine multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats ignore at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “group priority” 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 this ideology is the force behind the violations of global human rights standards not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every instance of global strife.

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 not been fair to all.

Over the past ten years, leaders 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 unipolar world once dominated by the United States to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means open commerce is being replaced by trade barriers. Where economics used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving economic decisions, and already more than 100 countries are running mercantilist policies characterized by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by bans on cross-border trade, foreign funding and technology transfer, lowering international cooperation 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 common sense of the world's population. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a significant portion are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to embrace international cooperation than many of the officials who govern them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing 16.5% of the global population (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is impossible or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

However there are another 21% 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 an influential thinker calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not isolated patriots, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “others”, adversaries permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates prefer a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or city wall? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A first group, about a fifth, will back aid efforts to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and have faith in something larger than their own interests.

Another segment comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for global progress are used effectively. And there is a final category, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse 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

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 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 necessity for collaboration, the response is both.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can overcome today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a positive, globally engaged and welcoming patriotism that responds to people’s need for community and connects to their everyday worries.

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 promptly be managed effectively – the public sentiment data 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 gave an emotional speech about how what’s positive in the nation 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 society.

However, as the prime minister also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. Nigel Farage hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in public services. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not repair downtrodden communities but ravage them, turn citizen against citizen 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. Continually from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which medical facility, which school and which government service will be the first to be cut or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetarism, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are indicating all over the west is that they want their governments to rebuild our economies and our communities. “Reform” and its international partners should be revealed day after day for policies that would devastate 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 presenting a argument for a better Britain that appeals not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.