🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage portrays his political party as a unique occurrence that has burst on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable epochal event. But this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties like his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and the legislature. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Italian political group are already in government, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Dutch PVV and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, motivated by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, aiming to dethrone the global legal order, diminish human rights and destroy international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave exposes a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has replaced economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russian primacy”, “group priority” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism that helps explain why the world is now composed of 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and this ideology 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

Crucial to understand the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It begins with a widely felt sense that a globalization that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, political figures have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel excluded and marginalized, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, transitioning from a unipolar world once dominated by the US to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means free trade is being replaced by trade barriers. Where economics used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running protectionist strategies marked out by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on cross-border trade, foreign funding and technology transfer, sinking international cooperation to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The cement is still wet, and even as it hardens we can find hope in the pragmatism of the world's population. In a poll conducted for a major foundation, of 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a clear majority are less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to support global teamwork than many of the officials who rule over them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the world's people (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is unattainable or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

However there are an additional group at the opposite extreme, 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

Most people of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “America first” ideology would suggest, or all-in cosmopolitans. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “our side” and the “others”, opponents always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle favor a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or city wall? Yes, under certain conditions. A initial segment, 22%, will support aid efforts to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of altruism, backing emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” cooperation advocates empathize of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

A second group 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, 21%, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or safety and stability.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

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 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 work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the answer is each.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat current pessimistic, isolated and often forceful and controlling nationalism that vilifies newcomers, outsiders and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, outward-looking and inclusive national pride that responds to people’s desire to belong and connects to their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while detailed surveys 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 immediate neighborhoods. Last month, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly 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 commonly cited when asked about both our economy and community.

But as the leader also reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. Nigel Farage hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not repair struggling areas but ravage them, create social division and destroy any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be ill, impaired, needy or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, Reform should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more harmful even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the public are telling us all over the west is that they want their leaders to rebuild our economies and our communities. “The party” and its international partners should be exposed day after day for plans that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be in the future, we can go beyond highlighting the party's contradictions by presenting a case for a improved nation that appeals not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.