The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a distinct occurrence that has exploded on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional epochal event. But this week, in every one of Europe’s leading 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 opinion polls.
During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure toppled prime minister 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 presidential race and parliament. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Italian political group are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, motivated by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, seeking to overthrow the international rule of law, diminish human rights and destroy international collaboration.
The Populist Nationalist Surge
The populist nationalist surge exposes a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy ignore at our peril: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has replaced economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “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 force behind the breaches of global human rights standards not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every instance of global strife.
Understanding the Underlying Forces
Crucial to understand the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this new age of nationalism. It begins with a widely felt sense that a globalization that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a unregulated system that has been unjust to all.
For more than a decade, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the millions who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the shifting dynamics of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era once dominated by the United States to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means free trade is giving way to trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas 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 cross-border trade, foreign funding and technology transfer, lowering international cooperation to its weakest point since 1945.
Optimism in Public Opinion
However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, 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 thousands of individuals in 34 countries we find a significant portion are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more inclined to support global teamwork than many of the leaders who govern them.
Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the global population (even if 25% in the United States currently) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is unattainable 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.
But there are another 21% at the other end, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what an influential thinker calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.
The Global Majority's Stance
Most people of the world's citizens are moderate in views: not isolated patriots, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “our side” and the “them”, adversaries permanently set apart from each other in an unbridgeable divide.
Are most moderates favor a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under specific circumstances. A initial segment, about a fifth, will support aid efforts to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of selflessness, supporting emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.
A second group 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, roughly a fifth, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them basic necessities or peace and security.
Forging a Collaborative Consensus
Thus a definite majority can be constructed not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with global problems, like climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress the reciprocal benefits that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long wondered whether we work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the answer is both.
This willingness to work internationally shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome current pessimistic, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and inclusive patriotism that responds to people’s desire to belong and connects to their immediate concerns.
Tackling Key Issues
And while detailed surveys tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be brought under control – 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 immediate neighborhoods. Recently, the UK Prime Minister gave an emotional speech about how what’s positive in the nation can drive out what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “broken” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our economy and society.
But as the prime minister also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. Nigel Farage praised a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the largest reductions in public services. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not fix struggling areas but ravage them, turn citizen against citizen and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be ill, impaired, poor or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be reduced or shut down.
Risks and Solutions
“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their governments to restore our financial systems and our civic societies. “The party” and its international partners should be revealed repeatedly for plans that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be ahead of us, we can go beyond highlighting Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a argument for a better Britain that appeals not just to visionaries, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.
