🔗 Share this article

Nigel Farage depicts his political party as a distinct occurrence that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional historic moment. However this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from India and Thailand to the US and Argentina, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also leading in the opinion polls.

In last Saturday’s Czech elections, the conservative, pro-Russian leader Andrej Babiš toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In the German nation, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the leading party. A Hungarian political force, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Brothers of Italy are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, seeking to overthrow the international rule of law, weaken fundamental freedoms and destroy international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a new and unavoidable truth that democrats ignore at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has supplanted economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russian primacy”, “my tribe first” and often “exclusive group focus” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment that helps explain why the world is now composed of 91 autocracies and only 88 democracies, and this ideology is the driver behind the violations of global human rights standards not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

Crucial to grasp the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have fuelled this new age of nationalism. It starts with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was open but not inclusive has been a unregulated system that has been unjust to all.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been delayed in addressing to the millions who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the US to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means free trade is being replaced by trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies marked out by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by bans on cross-border trade, foreign funding and knowledge sharing, sinking global collaboration to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the global public. In a poll conducted for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are less receptive to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to support international cooperation than many of the officials who govern them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of staunch global cooperation opponents representing 16.5% of the global population (even if a quarter in the United States currently) who either feel peaceful living between diverse communities 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 other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through free commerce as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what an influential thinker calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the world's citizens are moderate in views: not isolated patriots, as “America first” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “them”, adversaries permanently set apart from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Are most moderates prefer 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, 22%, will back aid efforts to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of altruism, supporting disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists empathize 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 international development are spent well. And there is a third group, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a definite majority can be built 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 argument is argued on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress the mutual advantages that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we work together from necessity or if we have a need to cooperate, the answer is both.

And this openness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling patriotic extremism that vilifies newcomers, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a positive, globally engaged and inclusive patriotism that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must promptly be managed effectively – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public are even more worried by what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. Recently, a prominent leader spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can drive out what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “dysfunctional” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our financial system and community.

But as the prime minister also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. Nigel Farage praised a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in public services. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not repair downtrodden communities but ravage them, turn citizen against citizen and wreck any sense of unity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be ill, disabled, poor or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be cut or closed.

Risks and Solutions

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetary policy, and spiteful far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are telling us all over the Western world is that they want their governments to restore our economies and our civic societies. “The party” and its global allies should be exposed repeatedly for policies that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out the party's contradictions by setting out a case for a improved nation that appeals not just to idealists, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the daily kindness of the British people.