NEW DELHI: We are living in interesting, albeit dangerous times. The last five years or so have seen the steady growth of a curious new brand of politics that goes head-on with the realpolitik of the late 80’s and 90’s while challenging the very basis of the liberal socio-political order throughout the world. It has been curiously labeled as “rising right-wing nationalism” although its proponents habitually belittle facets of both, right-wing politics and nationalism.

It is a streak that has most closely seen to be associated with the presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. However, if for once we move beyond Americentrism reflected in a New Yorker article titled “A Europe of Donald Trumps”, we can that see similar and at times worse rhetoric has been spewed by leaders across Europe, from Marine le Pen in France to Victor Orban in Hungary and Geert Wilders of Netherlands in between, among many others.

Many would rightly point out that certain world leaders like Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russian President Vladmir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have also shown tendency of strongman politics while rousing nationalist expressions. However, the reason they’ve been left out of the phenomena is because western countries have a long history of attaching a pre-eminence to their socio-political systems that they see immune from authoritarianism, only to see that belief crumble once again.

Now, this wave of right-wing nationalist politics isn’t of the same accord as the fascism of the early twentieth century, yet its proliferation signals an ascent that can have tragic consequences world over. Certain core ideas that define this form of politics are nativism, nationalism, populism and authoritarianism. Now it is natural that to get to the heart of this brand of politics we need to focus on the context in which it has developed.

The post-globalized world order has seen the old distinctions of “developed-developing” and “first-second-third worlds” slowly wither away. What we now see is a rise of “centres” of globalization. These centres are usually cities that have grown exponentially in the wake of economic upturn and are characterized by multiculturalism. The concentration of economic power in such areas has incensed citizens of the rest of the country. This is where the politics of nativism and xenophobia come in. Trump has found his scapegoat in Mexicans, while the European leaders target the natives of the erstwhile Soviet Union republics as ploying “to steal the jobs we deserve.”

This xenophobic account is added to the security issue as well. The rise of terrorist organizations like the Islamic State that have repeatedly attacked European cities like Paris and Brussels has resulted in a very strong Islamophobic rhetoric. At the receiving end of this development have been the millions of ill fated refugees that make their way to Europe after braving treacherous journeys only to be detained, deported and denied shelter.

This is not to take away from the excellent work of many countries that have taken in millions of refugees and have resettled them but the plight that a majority of the refugees continue to encounter. While Trump is cheered on as he makes preposterous suggestions like “building a wall” on the US-Mexico border and “banning Muslims from entering the USA,” the Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban has already constructed walls to close down Hungary’s borders to refugees.

Geert Wilders, leader of the far-right Freedom party in Netherlands distributed pepper spray to women saying it was to prevent the Islamic refugees from “dropping testosterone bombs” in an attempt to unleash “sexual jihad.” Immigration was also the turning point in the “Brexit” decision as the leave campaign led by Nigel Farage, leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party used inflammatory rhetoric that included blaming them for traffic that led to a no-show at one of his rallies.

The mass of the supporters of these leaders support these nativist ideas as the immigrants present an easy target to blame their combined economic and cultural insecurities on. This is reflected demographically as older, non-college going and rural voters form the thrust of the support for such parties.

In a way the world never really recovered from the 2008 economic crisis. The unemployment rose sharply from 7% to 11% in Europe while in USA it impacted many middle-income households. This has led to a period of economic stagnation that is in sharp contrast to the rapid economic growth of the early 2000’s. This is where we these leaders draw on a sense of dormant discontent that exists in the populace. With promises like “make America great again” invoking a sense of patriotism, a major feature of the economic agenda of these leaders rests on a sense of isolationism.

Right after the British referendum, Marine le Pen called for a “Frexit” and promised a similar referendum in France if elected in next year’s presidential elections. The assurance was repeated by other like-minded figures like Wilders in Netherlands and far-right parties like Alternative for Deautschland in Germany, Lega Nord in Italy and Danish People’s Party in Denmark.

This sense of isolationism is seen to complement the nationalistic rhetoric that aims to convince the people that reversing “the loss of sovereignty” would allow these nations to sustain their economic growth while also simultaneously ensuring that jobs aren’t “lost out” to migrants.

The proposition has support across a wide spectrum although it is at times drawn using dubious methods. For example, the leave campaign of the Brexit debate used bus advertisements saying, “We send the EU £350 million a week - let's fund our NHS (National Health Service) instead.” While the 350 million pounds figure was proven incorrect long ago, Nigel Farage distanced himself even from the promise saying “It wasn’t one of my ads” right after the referendum result.

These two broad issues coalesce into the broader issue that sees the general population of these countries lose their faith in establishment politics in general. Apart from the two immediate factors outlined above, this loss of faith owes itself to decades of rule by usually the same two-three political parties without a major socio-economic change for the voters. This is where the trend for anti-establishment leaders emerges. While this window of opportunity is also open to progressive leaders like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, the left has generally been unable to take advantage of the opening. This is mainly because it fails to reflect a cohesive and comprehensive ideological standpoint at a time when the youth is increasingly drawn towards esoteric identity markers like feminism, the LGBTQ movement, environmental brigade and others.

The advantage has been seized by right-wing strongman leaders that glow in their anti-establishment credentials. This is one of the reasons why Marine le Pen sought to revitalize her party’s image following her ascend to rid it off the image associated with her father’s leadership. These candidates by being seen as “outsiders” are able to rally their supporters on the lines of being one of them while conveniently blaming the political class as a monolith of corrupt and inefficient functionaries. This rhetoric coupled with a well established pattern of partisan de-alignment in recent years ensure that voters leave their allegiance towards established parties in support of newer parties or rally for a change in leadership amongst them.

Now, these developments do not make a good reading and it is fair to assume that things might get worse hereon as these leaders get closer to power. However, it also presents a unique historical opportunity for the people that are outside the spectrum of this madness to come together and align against this toxic rhetoric while upholding the values of humanism, democratic socialism and liberty.

Latest News

YASH SHARMA