🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader depicts his political party as a distinct phenomenon that has burst on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional epochal event. However this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from India and Thailand to the US and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties like his are also ahead in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency and the legislature. In Germany, 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 staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, seeking to dethrone the global legal order, weaken human rights and destroy international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge exposes a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russian primacy”, “my tribe first” and often “exclusive group focus” 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 instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

It is important to understand the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It starts 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.

Over the past ten years, 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 US-dominated era once led by the United States to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The nationalist ideology that this has provoked means free trade is giving way to trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running mercantilist policies characterized by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by restrictions on international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, sinking international cooperation to its weakest point since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

But all is not lost. The cement is still wet, and even as it hardens we can see optimism in the common sense of the world's population. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to support global teamwork than many of the officials who rule over them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the global population (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel coexistence 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 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 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 global public are moderate in views: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, 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 “others”, adversaries always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle favor a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their local area or city wall? Yes, under certain conditions. A first group, about a fifth, will back aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of selflessness, backing emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists feel the pain of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are spent well. And there is a final category, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through ensuring them basic necessities or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

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 pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we stress 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 response is both.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that demonises newcomers, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, outward-looking and inclusive patriotism that addresses people’s desire to belong and connects to 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 public sentiment data also tell us that the public are even more concerned about what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their own local communities. Last month, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our financial system and community.

However, as the leader also reminded us, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. A Reform leader praised a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was planned – the largest reductions in public services. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by £275bn would not fix struggling areas but damage 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, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which school and which government service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are indicating all over the west is that they want their leaders to restore our economies and our civic societies. “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 highlighting the party's contradictions by presenting a case for a better Britain that appeals not just to visionaries, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.