🔗 Share this article

The Reform UK leader portrays his Reform UK party as a distinct occurrence that has exploded on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an remarkable epochal event. But this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the US and South America, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also leading in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is leading the polls for both the presidential race and the legislature. In the German nation, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Italian political group are already in power, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of anti-internationalists, inspired by right-wing influencers like Steve Bannon, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, diminish human rights and destroy international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has supplanted economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “India first”, “China first”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” and often “my tribe first and only” 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 breaches of global human rights standards not just by Russia in Ukraine but in almost every instance of global strife.

Root Causes Explained

Crucial 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 unregulated system that has not been fair to all.

For more than a decade, political figures have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel left out and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the United States to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has provoked means open commerce is being replaced by protectionism. Where market forces used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies marked out 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

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 recent survey for a major foundation, of 36,000 people in 34 countries we find a clear majority are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to support global teamwork than many of the leaders who govern them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the global population (even if a quarter in the United States currently) who either feel coexistence between ethnic and religious groups is impossible or have a zero-sum mindset that if they or their nation do well, it has to be at the expense of others doing badly.

But there are another 21% at the opposite extreme, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see international collaboration through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what an influential thinker calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the global public are moderate in views: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “our side” and the “them”, opponents permanently set apart from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Are most moderates favor a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or community boundaries? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A initial segment, about a fifth, will support humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are ready to act out of altruism, backing emergency help for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists empathize of others and have faith in something larger than their own interests.

A second group comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for international development are used effectively. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, self-interested multilateralists, who will endorse teamwork if they can see that it advantages them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a clear majority can be constructed not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for international measures to deal with global problems, like climate crisis and disease control, as long as this argument is presented 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 wondered whether we work together from necessity or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the answer is both.

And this openness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat today’s negative, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism 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 connects to their everyday worries.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the west, 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 public are even more concerned about what is happening in their own lives and within their immediate neighborhoods. Recently, a prominent leader gave an emotional speech about how what’s positive in the nation can overcome what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most developed nations, “dysfunctional” and “in decline” are the words people have for years most commonly cited when asked about both our financial system and society.

But as the prime minister also pointed out, the extreme right is more interested in using complaints than resolving issues. A Reform leader hailed a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in government programs. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by £275bn would not repair downtrodden communities but damage them, create social division and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a far-right government, you will not be able to afford to be ill, disabled, needy or vulnerable. Continually 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

“This ideology” is neoliberalism at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the people are telling us all over the west is that they want their governments to rebuild our economies and our communities. “The party” and its global allies should be exposed day after day for policies that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be ahead of us, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a case for a improved nation that appeals not just to idealists, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the British people.