The Reform UK leader portrays his political party as a unique phenomenon that has burst on to the global stage, its rapid ascent an exceptional epochal event. But this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the US and South America, far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties similar to his are also leading in the public surveys.
During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Russian leader a prominent figure overthrew the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just brought down yet another France's leader, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and parliament. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. A Hungarian political force, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Italian political group are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – 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, weaken fundamental freedoms and destroy multilateral cooperation.
The populist nationalist surge exposes a new and unavoidable truth that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: an nationalist ideology – once thought defeated with the Berlin Wall – has replaced economic liberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russian primacy”, “my tribe first” and often “my tribe first and only” regimes. It is this ethnic nationalism 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 violations of international human rights law not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.
It is important to understand the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have driven this new age of nationalism. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a free for all that has been unjust to all.
For more than a decade, leaders have not only been delayed in addressing to the many people who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, transitioning from a unipolar world 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 nationalist ideology that this has incited means open commerce is being replaced by trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive politics, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies characterized by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by bans on international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, lowering international cooperation to its weakest point since 1945.
However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens we can see optimism in the common sense of the world's population. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, 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 support global teamwork than many of the leaders who rule over them.
Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the global population (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel peaceful living 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 expense of others doing badly.
However there are an additional group at the other end, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see international collaboration through open trade as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what an influential thinker calls “locally engaged global citizens”.
Most people of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, 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 “our side” and the “others”, adversaries always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.
Do the majority in the middle favor a duty-free or a dutiful world? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or city wall? Affirmative, under specific circumstances. A first group, 22%, will back aid efforts to relieve suffering and are prepared to act out of selflessness, supporting disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists empathize of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.
Another segment comprising a similar percentage are pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any public funds for international development are used effectively. And there is a final category, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or safety and stability.
Thus a clear majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and disease control, as long as this argument is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we stress the reciprocal benefits 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 necessity for collaboration, the response is each.
And this openness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can defeat current pessimistic, inward-looking and often forceful and controlling nationalism that vilifies immigrants, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we advocate for a optimistic, globally engaged and inclusive national pride that addresses people’s need for community and connects to their everyday worries.
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 own lives and within their own local communities. Recently, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain can overcome 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.
However, as the prime minister also reminded us, the far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. A Reform leader praised a ill-fated economic plan as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. But he would also implement a comparable strategy – what was planned – the biggest ever cuts in public services. Reform’s plan to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not fix struggling areas but ravage them, turn citizen against citizen and destroy any sense of unity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be sick, disabled, needy or vulnerable. 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.
“This ideology” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more harmful 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 leaders to rebuild our economies and our communities. “Reform” and its international partners should be exposed repeatedly 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 argument for a better Britain that appeals not just to visionaries, but to realists, to personal benefit, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.
Cybersecurity analyst with a passion for ethical hacking and educating others on digital safety.
