Don't Succumb to the Autocratic Hype – Change and the Hard Right Can Be Halted in Their Tracks

Nigel Farage depicts his political party as a distinct phenomenon that has exploded on to the world stage, its meteoric rise an remarkable historic moment. However this week, in every one of Europe’s leading countries and from the Indian subcontinent and Thailand to the US and Argentina, hard-right, anti-immigrant, anti-globalization parties similar to his are also leading in the public surveys.

During recent Czech voting, the rightwing, pro-Putin populist Andrej Babiš toppled prime minister Petr Fiala. A French political group, which has just forced the resignation of yet another French prime minister, is leading the polls for both the presidential race and the legislature. In the German nation, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is currently the most popular party. Hungary’s Fidesz party, Slovakia's governing alliance and the Italian political group are already in power, while the Freedom party of Austria (FPÖ), the Dutch PVV and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang – all hardline nationalists – are part of an international coalition of anti-internationalists, motivated by far-right propagandists such as a well-known figure, aiming to overthrow the global legal order, weaken human rights and destroy multilateral cooperation.

Rise of Populist Nationalism

This nationalist wave exposes a new and unavoidable truth that democrats overlook at our peril: an authoritarian ethnic nationalism – once thought toppled with the Berlin Wall – has replaced neoliberalism as the leading belief system of our age, giving us a world of firsts: “America first”, “Indian focus”, “Chinese emphasis”, “Russia first”, “my tribe first” 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 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 understand the underlying forces, widespread globally, that have fuelled this recent nationalist era. It starts with a broadly shared perception that a globalisation that was accessible yet exclusionary has been a unregulated system that has been unjust to all.

Over the past ten years, 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 global economic power, transitioning from a unipolar world once dominated by the US to a multipolar world of competing superpowers, and from a system of international law to a might-makes-right approach. The ethnic nationalism that this has incited means open commerce is being replaced by protectionism. Where economics used to drive government policies, the nationalist agendas is now driving economic decisions, and already over a hundred nations are running mercantilist policies marked out by reshoring and friend-shoring and by restrictions on cross-border trade, investment and technology transfer, sinking international cooperation to its lowest ebb since the post-war period.

Optimism in Public Opinion

However, there is hope. The cement is still wet, and even as it solidifies we can see optimism 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 less receptive to an exclusionary nationalism and more willing to embrace global teamwork than many of the officials who rule over them.

Across the world there is, maybe unexpectedly, only a limited number of staunch global cooperation opponents representing a minority of the world's people (even if 25% in today’s US) who either feel coexistence between diverse communities is impossible or have a zero-sum mindset 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 other end, whom we might call committed internationalists, who either still see cooperation across borders through free commerce as a mutually beneficial arrangement, or are what an influential thinker calls “rooted cosmopolitans”.

The Global Majority's Stance

Most people 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 devoted to their country but don’t see the world as in a permanent conflict between the “our side” and the “them”, adversaries always divided from each other in an irreconcilable gap.

Do the majority in the middle favor a obligation-light or a responsible global community? Are they willing to accept obligations beyond their garden gate or community boundaries? Yes, under specific circumstances. A initial segment, 22%, will support humanitarian action to relieve suffering and are ready to act out of selflessness, backing emergency help 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 pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any taxes paid for international development are used effectively. And there is a third group, roughly a fifth, personally motivated collaborators, who will approve cooperation if they can see that it advantages them and their communities, whether it be through guaranteeing them basic necessities or peace and security.

Forging a Collaborative Consensus

Thus a clear majority can be built not just for emergency assistance if money is well spent but also for global action to deal with global problems, like climate crisis and pandemic prevention, as long as this argument is presented on grounds of wise personal benefit, 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 answer is both.

This willingness to cooperate across borders shows how we can reverse the anti-foreigner sentiment: we can overcome current pessimistic, isolated and often aggressive and authoritarian nationalism that vilifies newcomers, outsiders and “others” as long as we advocate for a positive, outward-looking and welcoming patriotism that responds to people’s desire to belong and connects to their immediate concerns.

Addressing Public Concerns

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 public sentiment data also tell us that the public are even more worried by what is happening in their own lives and within their immediate neighborhoods. Last month, the UK Prime Minister spoke movingly about how what’s good about Britain 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 financial system and community.

However, as the prime minister also pointed out, the far right is more interested in exploiting grievances than ending them. A Reform leader praised a disastrous mini-budget as “the best Conservative budget” since the 1980s. But he would also enact a comparable strategy – what was intended – the largest reductions in public services. The party's proposal to cut government expenditure by £275bn would not repair downtrodden communities 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, impaired, needy or vulnerable. Every day from now on, and in every electoral district, Reform should be asked which hospital, which educational institution and which public 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 harmful even than monetary policy, and vindictive far beyond austerity. What the people are indicating all over the Western world is that they want their leaders to rebuild our economies and our civic societies. “Reform” and its international partners should be exposed repeatedly for plans that would devastate both. And for those of us who believe our best days could be ahead of us, we can go beyond highlighting Reform’s hypocrisy by presenting a case for a better Britain that appeals not just to visionaries, but to pragmatists, to self-interest, and to the daily kindness of the British people.