Don't Fall for the Authoritarian Hype – Change and the Hard Right Are Able to Be Stopped in Their Paths

Nigel Farage depicts his political party as a unique phenomenon that has exploded on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an exceptional epochal event. However this week, in every one of Europe’s major countries and from India and Thailand to the United States and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation parties like his are also leading in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist a prominent figure overthrew the head of government Petr Fiala. National Rally, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is ahead the polls for both the presidential race and the legislature. In Germany, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Italian political group are already in government, while the Austrian FPÖ, the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an global alliance of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by far-right propagandists like Steve Bannon, aiming to overthrow the international rule of law, weaken human rights and undermine international collaboration.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

The populist nationalist surge reveals a recent undeniable reality that supporters of democracy overlook at great risk: an nationalist ideology – 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”, “China first”, “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 ethnic nationalism is the driver behind the breaches 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 root causes, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this new age of nationalism. It begins with a widely felt sense 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 delayed in addressing to the many people who feel left out and marginalized, but also to the shifting dynamics of world economic influence, transitioning from a US-dominated era once dominated by the US to a multipolar world of rival major nations, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has provoked means open commerce 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 protectionist strategies characterized by reshoring and ally-focused trade and by bans on cross-border trade, investment and technology transfer, sinking global collaboration to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Hope in Global Public Sentiment

But all is not lost. The situation is not fixed, and even as it hardens we can find hope in the pragmatism of the world's population. In a poll conducted for a major foundation, of thousands of individuals in dozens of nations we find a significant portion are more resistant to an divisive nationalist agenda and more willing to embrace global teamwork than many of the officials who rule over them.

Globally there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a small group of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the global population (even if a quarter in today’s US) who either feel peaceful living between ethnic and religious groups is impossible or have a win-lose perspective that if they or their country do well, it has to be at the cost of others doing badly.

But there are an additional group at the other end, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through free commerce as a positive sum win-win, or are what an influential thinker calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority of the world's citizens are somewhere in between: not narrow, inward-looking nationalists, as “US priority” ideology would suggest, or fully global citizens. They are patriotic but don’t see the world as in a never-ending struggle between the “us” and the “others”, adversaries permanently set apart from each other in an unbridgeable divide.

Do the majority in the middle prefer a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or city wall? Yes, under specific circumstances. A first group, about a fifth, will back humanitarian action to alleviate hardship and are prepared to act out of selflessness, supporting disaster relief for disaster zones. Those we might call “charitable” multilateralists feel the pain of others and have faith in something bigger than themselves.

Another segment comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for international development are spent well. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, personally motivated collaborators, who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their local areas, whether it be through ensuring them basic necessities or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

So a definite majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with worldwide issues, like climate crisis and disease control, as long as this argument is argued on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and if we emphasize the reciprocal benefits that benefit them and their own country. And thus for those who have long questioned whether we cooperate out of need or if we have a necessity for collaboration, the response is both.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can defeat current pessimistic, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that demonises immigrants, foreigners and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and inclusive patriotism that addresses people’s need for community and resonates with their immediate concerns.

Tackling Key Issues

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the west, illegal immigration is currently the biggest national issue – and no one should doubt that it must quickly be brought under control – the public sentiment data also tell us that the people 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 society.

But as the leader also pointed out, the far right is more interested in using complaints than ending them. Nigel Farage praised a disastrous mini-budget as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also implement a similar plan – what was intended – the biggest ever cuts in public services. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by a huge sum would not fix struggling areas but ravage them, turn citizen against citizen and wreck any spirit of solidarity. Under a hard-right regime, 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, Reform should be asked which hospital, which school and which government service will be the first to be reduced or closed.

The Stakes and the Alternative

“This ideology” is economic theory at its most inhumane, more destructive even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are telling us all over the Western world is that they want their governments to restore our economies and our communities. “Reform” and its international partners should be revealed repeatedly for policies that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be in the future, we can go beyond highlighting Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a argument for a better Britain that resonates not just to idealists, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the nation's citizens.