🔗 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 meteoric rise an exceptional historic moment. But this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia to the United States and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also ahead in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another French prime minister, is leading the polls for both the presidential race and parliament. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party is currently the most popular party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, motivated by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the global legal order, diminish fundamental freedoms and destroy international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave exposes a recent undeniable reality that democrats overlook at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought defeated with the historic barrier – has replaced economic liberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “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 many autocratic states and fewer democratic ones, and this ideology is the force behind the breaches 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 grasp the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have fuelled 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 not been fair to all.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the many people who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the changing balance of global economic power, moving us from a US-dominated era once led by the US to a multi-power landscape of rival major nations, and from a system of international law to a power-based one. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means free trade is giving way to protectionism. Where market forces used to drive politics, the politics of nationalism is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies characterized by bringing production home and friend-shoring and by bans on international commerce, foreign funding and technology transfer, sinking global collaboration to its weakest point since the post-war period.

Optimism in Public Opinion

But all is not lost. The cement is still wet, and even as it hardens we can see optimism in the pragmatism of the global public. In a poll conducted for a major foundation, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to embrace international cooperation than many of the leaders who rule over 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 ethnic and religious groups 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 dedicated globalists, who either still see international collaboration through free commerce 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 permanent conflict between the “us” and the “them”, opponents always divided from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Are most moderates favor a obligation-light or a dutiful world? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or city wall? Yes, under specific circumstances. A first group, 22%, will support humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of altruism, backing disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists empathize of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for global progress are spent well. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or safety and stability.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a definite 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 climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we emphasize 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 response is both.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome today’s negative, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that vilifies immigrants, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that responds to people’s need for community and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, unauthorized entry is currently the top concern – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be brought under control – the snapshots of opinion also tell us that the public are even more worried by what is happening in their personal circumstances and within their immediate neighborhoods. Last month, a prominent leader gave an emotional speech about how what’s positive in the nation can drive out what’s bad, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “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 reminded us, the extreme right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. A Reform leader praised a disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was intended – the largest reductions in public services. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not repair struggling areas but damage them, create social division and destroy any sense of unity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be ill, disabled, needy or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, the party should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be cut or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most cruel, more destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their governments to rebuild our financial systems and our civic societies. “Reform” and its global allies should be revealed repeatedly for plans that would harm 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 argument for a improved nation that appeals not just to visionaries, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the British people.