Avoid Fall for the Autocratic Hype – Change and the Far Right Are Able to Be Stopped in Their Tracks

Nigel Farage depicts his Reform UK party as a unique occurrence that has exploded on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable historic moment. However this week, in every one of the continent's major countries and from India and Thailand to the United States and South America, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also ahead in the opinion polls.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš overthrew the head of government Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just forced the resignation of yet another France's leader, is leading the polls for both the French presidency and parliament. In the German nation, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Italian political group are already in power, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian 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 global legal order, diminish human rights and undermine international collaboration.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

The populist nationalist surge exposes a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy overlook 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 priorities: “America first”, “India first”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “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 driver behind the violations of global human rights standards not just by one nation in conflict but in almost every instance of global strife.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

Crucial to understand the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have driven this recent nationalist era. It begins with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a unregulated system that has not been fair to all.

For more than a decade, leaders have not only been slow to respond to the millions who feel excluded and left behind, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, transitioning from a US-dominated era once led by the United States to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means open commerce is being replaced by protectionism. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving financial choices, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies marked out by bringing production home and ally-focused trade and by restrictions on international commerce, investment and technology transfer, lowering global collaboration 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 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 exclusionary nationalism and more willing to embrace global teamwork than many of the officials who rule over them.

Globally there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing a minority of the world's people (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel peaceful living between diverse communities is impossible 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.

But there are an additional group at the opposite extreme, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see international collaboration through free commerce as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

Worldwide Public Position

Most people of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: 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 permanent conflict between the “us” 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 local area or community boundaries? Yes, under specific circumstances. A first group, 22%, will back humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of altruism, supporting emergency help for affected areas. Those we might call “charitable” cooperation advocates empathize of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

A second group comprising 22% are practical cooperators who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are spent well. And there is a third group, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through guaranteeing them food on the table or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a definite majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if funds are used wisely but also for international measures to deal with worldwide issues, like environmental emergency and pandemic prevention, as long as this case is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we stress the mutual advantages that flow to them and their own country. And thus for those who have long wondered whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a need to cooperate, the answer is both.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome today’s negative, isolated and often forceful and controlling nationalism that demonises newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, globally engaged and inclusive patriotism that addresses people’s desire to belong and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

And while in-depth polls tell us that across the Western nations, illegal immigration is currently the biggest national issue – and it's clear that it must promptly be brought under control – 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. Last month, 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 economy and community.

However, as the prime minister also pointed out, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. Nigel Farage praised a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since 1986. But he would also enact a similar plan – what was planned – the largest reductions in public services. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by £275bn would not repair struggling areas but ravage 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, impaired, poor or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every constituency, the party should be asked which medical facility, which educational institution and which government service will be the first to be cut or shut down.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“Faragism” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond fiscal restraint. What the public are telling us all over the west is that they want their governments to restore our financial systems and our communities. “Reform” and its global allies should be revealed repeatedly for plans that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be in the future, we can go beyond pointing out Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a argument for a better Britain that appeals not just to idealists, but to realists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.