🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his political party as a distinct occurrence that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional epochal event. However this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from India and Thailand to the United States and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties like his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and parliament. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party is currently the most popular party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Italian political group are already in power, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, inspired by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, seeking to dethrone the international rule of law, diminish fundamental freedoms and destroy multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge reveals a recent undeniable reality that democrats overlook at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has replaced neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” 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 ethnic nationalism is the driver behind the breaches of global human rights standards not just by Russia in Ukraine 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 underlying forces, widespread globally, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It begins with a widely felt sense 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, political figures have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the shifting dynamics of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the United States to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has provoked means open commerce is being replaced by protectionism. Where economics used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies characterized by reshoring and friend-shoring and by bans on cross-border trade, foreign funding and technology transfer, lowering international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

But all is not lost. The situation is not fixed, and even as it solidifies we can find hope in the common sense of the global public. In a poll conducted 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 inclined to support global teamwork than many of the leaders who rule over them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the global population (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups 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.

But there are another 21% at the other end, 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 an influential thinker calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

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 fully global citizens. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “them”, adversaries always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates favor a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Yes, under specific circumstances. A first group, 22%, will back humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of altruism, supporting disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates feel the pain of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for global progress are spent well. And there is a third group, 21%, 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.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a clear majority can be constructed not just for humanitarian aid if money is well spent but also for international measures to deal with global problems, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this case 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 questioned whether we work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the answer is both.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome today’s negative, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling nationalism that vilifies newcomers, foreigners and “others” as long as we champion a positive, 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, illegal immigration is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be brought under control – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public 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 good about Britain can drive out what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “broken” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our financial system and community.

However, as the leader also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. Nigel Farage praised 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 government programs. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not fix downtrodden communities but ravage them, create social division and destroy any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be sick, impaired, needy or vulnerable. Continually from now on, and in every electoral district, Reform should be asked which medical facility, which school and which public service will be the first to be cut or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are telling us all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to restore our financial systems and our communities. “The party” and its international partners should be revealed repeatedly for plans that would harm 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 setting out a case for a improved nation that resonates not just to visionaries, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.