Don't Succumb to the Authoritarian Hype – Reform and the Hard Right Are Able to Be Stopped in Their Paths

The Reform UK leader depicts his Reform UK party as a unique occurrence that has exploded on to the global stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable historic moment. But this week, in every one of the continent's leading countries and from India and Southeast Asia to the US and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigration, anti-globalisation parties like his are also leading in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the conservative, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš overthrew prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just brought down yet another French prime minister, is ahead the polls for both the French presidency and the legislature. In the German nation, the right-wing AfD party is currently the leading party. A Hungarian political force, Robert Fico’s pro-Russian Slovakian coalition and the Brothers of Italy are already in government, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Netherlands’ Freedom party (PVV) and Belgian Vlaams Belang – all staunch nationalist groups – are part of an international coalition of opponents of global cooperation, inspired by right-wing influencers such as a well-known figure, aiming to dethrone the international rule of law, weaken human rights and destroy multilateral cooperation.

The Populist Nationalist Surge

This nationalist wave reveals a recent undeniable reality that democrats ignore at great risk: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the historic barrier – has supplanted neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of our age, giving us a world of priorities: “US priority”, “Indian focus”, “China first”, “Russian primacy”, “group priority” and often “my tribe first and only” regimes. It is this nationalist sentiment 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 one of the world’s 59 cross-border conflicts and civil wars.

Understanding the Underlying Forces

Crucial to understand the underlying forces, common to almost every country, that have fuelled this new age of nationalism. It starts with a widely felt sense that a globalisation 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 global economic power, moving us from a unipolar world once dominated by the US to a multi-power landscape of competing superpowers, and from a rules-based order to a power-based one. The nationalist ideology that this has provoked means free trade is giving way to trade barriers. Where market forces used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving economic decisions, and already more than 100 countries are running protectionist strategies characterized by reshoring and friend-shoring and by bans on international commerce, investment and knowledge sharing, sinking global collaboration to its lowest ebb since 1945.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The situation is not fixed, and even as it solidifies we can find hope in the pragmatism of the global public. In a recent survey for a prominent organization, of 36,000 people in dozens of nations we find a clear majority are more resistant to an exclusionary nationalism and more inclined to embrace global teamwork than many of the officials who rule over them.

Across the world there is, perhaps surprisingly, only a limited number of hardened anti-internationalists representing 16.5% of the world's people (even if a quarter in the United States currently) who either feel coexistence 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 another 21% at the other end, whom we might call dedicated globalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through open trade as a positive sum win-win, or are what a prominent philosopher calls “locally engaged global citizens”.

The Global Majority's Stance

The vast majority 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 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 prefer a duty-free or a responsible global community? Are they prepared to accept responsibilities beyond their local area or community boundaries? Yes, under certain conditions. A initial segment, about a fifth, will back humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of selflessness, backing disaster relief for affected areas. Those we might call “good cause” multilateralists feel the pain of others and believe in something larger than their own interests.

A second group comprising a similar percentage are practical cooperators who want to know that any public funds for international development are used effectively. And there is a third group, 21%, self-interested multilateralists, who will approve teamwork if they can see that it benefits them and their communities, whether it be through ensuring them food on the table or peace and security.

Building a Cooperative Majority

Thus a definite majority can be built not just for humanitarian aid 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 case is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, and if we emphasize the reciprocal benefits that flow to 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.

This willingness to work internationally shows how we can turn back the xenophobic tide: we can defeat current pessimistic, inward-looking and often aggressive and authoritarian patriotic extremism that vilifies newcomers, foreigners and “different groups” as long as we champion a positive, outward-looking and welcoming patriotism that responds to people’s desire to belong and resonates with their everyday worries.

Tackling Key Issues

Although detailed surveys tell us that across the west, unauthorized entry is currently the biggest national issue – and it's clear that it must quickly be brought under control – the public sentiment data also tell us that the public are even more concerned about what is happening in their own lives and within their immediate neighborhoods. Recently, the UK Prime Minister gave an emotional speech about how what’s good about Britain can overcome what’s negative, doing so precisely because in most western countries, “dysfunctional” and “deteriorating” are the words people have for years most frequently used when asked about both our economy and community.

But as the prime minister also pointed out, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than resolving issues. Nigel Farage hailed a ill-fated economic plan as “an excellent fiscal policy” since 1986. But he would also implement a comparable strategy – what was planned – the largest reductions in public services. The party's proposal to reduce public spending by £275bn would not fix struggling areas but damage them, turn citizen against citizen and wreck any sense of unity. Under a hard-right regime, you will not be able to afford to be ill, disabled, needy or at-risk. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, 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 economic theory at its most cruel, more harmful even than monetarism, and spiteful far beyond austerity. What the public are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to rebuild our financial systems and our communities. “The party” and its international partners should be revealed repeatedly for plans that would harm both. And for those of us who believe our greatest achievements could be ahead of us, we can go beyond highlighting Reform’s hypocrisy by setting out a argument for a better Britain that appeals not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the everyday compassion of the nation's citizens.