🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his political party as a distinct occurrence that has exploded on to the world stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional historic moment. But this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the US and South America, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties like his are also leading in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the leading party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Italian political group are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, seeking to dethrone the global legal order, diminish human rights and destroy multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave exposes a recent undeniable reality that democrats overlook at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “group priority” 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 one nation in conflict but in almost every one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

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 widely felt sense that a globalization that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a unregulated system that has been unjust to all.

Over the past ten years, leaders have not only been delayed in addressing to the millions who feel left out and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the US 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 market forces used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies marked out by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by restrictions on cross-border trade, investment and technology transfer, lowering global collaboration to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

But all is not lost. 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 prominent organization, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to embrace global teamwork 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 a minority 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 cost of others doing badly.

However there are another 21% at the other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see international collaboration through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

The vast majority of the global public are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, 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 permanent conflict between the “our side” and the “others”, opponents always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates favor a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Affirmative, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will support humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of selflessness, backing disaster relief 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 pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for international development are used effectively. And there is a final category, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a definite majority can be constructed not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for international measures to deal with worldwide issues, like climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we emphasize the reciprocal benefits that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the response is each.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can overcome current pessimistic, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling nationalism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “others” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although in-depth polls 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 public sentiment data also tell us that the people are even more concerned about what is happening in their own lives and within their immediate neighborhoods. Last month, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can drive out 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 financial system and community.

However, as the leader also reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. Nigel Farage hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was planned – the largest reductions in public services. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not fix struggling areas 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 sick, disabled, poor or vulnerable. Continually from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be cut or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are indicating all over the west is that they want their governments to rebuild our financial systems and our civic societies. “Reform” and its global allies should be exposed repeatedly for policies that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out the party's contradictions by setting out a argument for a improved nation that resonates not just to visionaries, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.