The Resurgence of Neo-nationalism, Is the world moving toward managed globalization?

During the recent years, the world has been increasingly getting swept by a resurgent wave of nationalism. Election of BJP’s Narendra Modi as Indian Prime Minister, Brexit in Europe, the rise of Donald Trump in the United States, the return of populist, xenophobic and racist movements to the Netherlands, and other such happenings in Europe signify the resurgence of neo-nationalism in countries once known for their multiculturalism. The reason behind this resurgence is the strong popular sentiment that sees economic and national sovereignty as the necessary condition for self-determination and radical social change. The success of the neo-nationalist politicians can also be explained by their efforts to restore the old sense of community and source of identification. It is now crystal clear that the rising nationalism will lead the world toward a ‘managed’ form of globalization.

For more than a decade now, there has been a sharp spike in nationalist tensions, coupled with flare-ups in xenophobia and nativism, around the world, especially in the US and Europe. But, it took the historic Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States to spark a real conversation about the global resurgence of, and rise in, neo-nationalism. There is no denying the fact that neo-nationalism is no longer on the fringes of the political spectrum; it’s right at the centre. It pervades the majority society all across the Western world, from the USA to Australia, spreading contagiously into other parts of the world. The neo-nationalists try to sell nationalism in the name of economics, better corporate tax rates, greener government, and better energy policies.

In the early 1990s, the world was indeed a completely different one. The fall of the Berlin Wall brought about a new internationalist spirit. Francis Fukuyama read the triumph of the West as the triumph of democracy, liberalism and endless peace. Giving a more economic twist to the same tune, Kenichi Ohmae predicted the end of the nation-state and, Thomas Friedman was further spreading the image of a borderless world. More philosophical scholars were praising the virtues of cosmopolitanism. Twenty years ago, Fareed Zakaria denounced the rise of “illiberal democracy”. In South America, North Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans, South and Southeast Asia, democratic elections had given rise to authoritarian, ultra-nationalist regimes, quick to eviscerate the civil liberties and rights of opponents to their nationalist programme.

Today, we are back to a world of nations. Yet, this world is somewhat more entrenched than what it looked like only a few decades ago. The West, which had triumphed in the early 1990s, has now become more inward-looking amidst a series of crises: financial, economic, terrorist, migratory and European. Rather than pulling forces together, nations have preferred to raise their borders. The kind of xenophobic language, which, in the past, was confined within the most extremist fringes of the nation, has now become legitimate in the mainstream. Trump’s blatantly racist and Islamophobic comments, surprisingly, did not discredit his campaign. Neo-nationalism now pervades all across the Western world.

The strongest support for this neo-nationalism does not come from low-waged, unskilled, manual workers – the so-called “left-behind” – but from the petty bourgeoisie. The populist voters are not those being directly affected by and living in contact with migrants, but those living in predominantly white communities who feel threatened in their privileged socioeconomic status by economic decline or immigration.

Trump’s victory simply confirmed the fact that the movement for Brexit in Britain, as well as the movement for Trump in the United States and similar movements all over Europe are, in fact, all parts of a rising new anti-globalisation movement which began in Europe in the last few years and has spread all over the world. It is the same new anti-globalization movement, which led to the defeat of the pro-EU plebiscite in Italy that aimed to increase the powers of the local executive organs of the Transnational Elites (mainly based in the G7 countries) to impose the dictates of the New World Order. This new movement is a global movement of the victims of globalization – who constitute the vast majority of the world population – for economic and national sovereignty, as the necessary condition for self-determination and radical social change.

However, most of the Left, which traditionally had fought for the liberation of the victims of the capitalist system, particularly the working class, today, has been fully integrated into the NWO of neoliberal globalization, which is the latest version of this system, and cannot even think of questioning globalization and its institutions – the EU, WTO, IMF, WB, NATO etc. – as well as the multinationals and the elites running it. Instead, this globalist “Left” simply criticizes what it considers to be the system’s “excesses” and sides fully with the beneficiaries of globalization in expressing their desire to improve the present new world order rather than overthrow it.

Another sign of the coming “globalized nationalism” was the August 2010 visit by a delegation of far-right European parliamentarians to Japan’s Yasukuni shrine. In hindsight, it was telling in more than one way. It was a display not of the past but of the future of the global far-right, and it demonstrated new, improbable, yet highly effective transnational ties between nativists.

With the new generation, the far-right has certainly undergone a makeover, but its core principles remain.

Similarly in Russia, pan-Russian hyper-nationalism, still on the far fringes of politics at the beginning of the millennium, has found its way to the Kremlin, and now shapes Vladimir Putin’s official discourse.

The creation of the BRICS forum, bringing together Brazil, Russia, India, China and later South Africa was initially seen as the assertion of a new non-Western, or even post-Western power. However, its real combining force was a militant nationalism, ill at ease with global governing bodies that were perceived as too intrusive.

The alliance between neo-nationalist leaders now cuts through the Western/non-Western divide, as demonstrated by Vladimir Putin’s support for Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen. The neo-nationalist parties that emerged in the globalization era usually have little relation to the old nationalist parties that appeared at the time when nation-states were being created, often with the explicit aim to help the building of such nation-states. Neo-nationalist movements are, in effect, defensive movements fighting for the restoration of economic and national sovereignty, which is brutally phased out by the transnational elites in the globalization era.

However, the wave of neo-nationalism in the context of globalization should not be viewed as anti-globalisation but as a step towards managed globalization.

The best antidote to neo-nationalism is to address the real concerns of those who’ve been disadvantaged by the gross income inequality that global trade, deregulation and relaxation of tax obligations has produced. Re-institution of meaningful taxes on wealth, enforceable monitoring of securities and investment marketing, and more aggressive and comprehensive job re-training will go a long way toward alleviating the legitimate grievances of those being left behind. There is certainly a greater need for international cooperation in this interconnected and interdependent world, but cooperation in the form of a ‘superpower block’ is not the solution. Brexit does not mean walking away from international cooperation; rather it is a voice towards more equity-based global cooperation.