🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader depicts his Reform UK party as a unique occurrence that has burst on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional historic moment. But this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also leading in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš overthrew the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and the legislature. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party 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 power, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, motivated by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, seeking to overthrow the global legal order, diminish human rights and destroy international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge exposes a recent undeniable reality that democrats ignore at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “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 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.

Root Causes Explained

It is important to understand the root causes, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this new age of nationalism. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalization that was open but not inclusive has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the millions who feel left out 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 multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means free trade is giving way to trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving economic decisions, and already more than 100 countries are running mercantilist policies characterized by reshoring and friend-shoring and by bans on international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, sinking international cooperation to its weakest point since the post-war period.

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 major foundation, of thousands of individuals in 34 countries we find a clear majority are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing 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 the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living 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 cost of others doing badly.

However there are an additional group at the other end, 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”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority of the world's citizens are moderate in views: 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 permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or city wall? Yes, under certain conditions. A initial segment, about a fifth, will back aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists feel the pain of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are spent well. And there is a final category, roughly a fifth, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a clear majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if funds are used wisely but also for global action to deal with global problems, like climate crisis and disease control, as long as this argument is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we emphasize the reciprocal benefits that flow to them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a need to cooperate, the answer is both.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that demonises immigrants, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, globally engaged and welcoming national pride that addresses people’s need for community and connects to their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and it's clear that it must quickly be managed effectively – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the people are even more worried by what is happening in their own lives and within their own local communities. Recently, a prominent leader gave an emotional speech about how what’s good about Britain can overcome what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “dysfunctional” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our economy and community.

But as the prime minister also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. A Reform leader praised a disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was intended – the largest reductions in government programs. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not fix struggling areas but ravage them, turn citizen against citizen and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, needy or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which public service will be the first to be cut or shut down.

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 people are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their governments to rebuild our financial systems and our communities. “Reform” and its international partners should be exposed repeatedly for plans that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be in the future, we can go beyond highlighting Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a case for a better Britain that resonates not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.