After the Euro-elections, are the French National Front and the British UKIP here to stay? Are voters becoming more nationalistic, more xenophobic, more angry, or just more disillusioned?

My take is that people are right to feel that there is something deeply flawed not just about how the political parties operate but about what they are trying to do anyway. So far there is little sign of consensus about the way forward; the electorate thrashes about looking for someone to blame, someone to vote against.

I see this as a sign that an era is coming to an end. The era I have in mind is the one that began at the end of the Second World War.

The era

In the post-war settlement there was a consensus and commitment with three dominant features.

1. Peace through internationalism

An internationalist spirit was determined to co-operate in making the world a better place. Peace was to be ensured by different nations respecting each other, rejecting racist hostilities and working together through international organisations. Through the United Nations governments would seek peaceful settlements of international disputes. Twinning arrangements would break down hatreds.

Today that spirit has almost entirely disappeared. Governments see it as their task to promote the interests of their own country without regard for others. Political discourse judges the value of the EU purely on the basis of whether one’s own country benefits financially. British governments ‘defend Britain’s interests’ even to the extent of selling weapons to make a profit out of other nations’ wars.

2. Peace through economic co-operation

After years of destruction, soldiers returned home to find there were hardly any jobs. Governments needed to match the soldiers with the work needing to be done. Economic growth made sense. So also did international trade: by becoming more dependent on each other nations would have more to lose by fighting each other. The Common Market, precursor of the European Union, was part of the plan.

The commitments to economic growth and international trade are still very much with us. However they have now grown into cancers destroying us. Decades ago every country in western Europe had enough wealth to provide for the needs of all its people, but instead of turning to other priorities they have made the pursuit of ever-increasing wealth an end in itself. The logic of this objective leads governments to maximise the wealth of the richest while ignoring the plight of the poorest, since they contribute very little to the size of the economy. Thus the financial crash of 2008 and the subsequent austerity accentuated a polarisation of wealth which was happening anyway. Meanwhile international trade, once a cause for co-operation between governments and peoples, is now controlled by unelected international corporations driven purely by the profit motive.

3. Peace through democracy

At the end of the Second World War there was a commitment to democratically elected governments. Military dictators could declare war by personal decision: democracies needed the support of their electorates, who would naturally prefer peace unless they were seriously threatened. The election of a different government is better than a military coup. It is in the interests of democratic governments to acknowledge dissatisfaction and address it. Military dictatorships survived for some time in Spain and Portugal, but they began to look anachronistic.

Today those democratic systems of government are still in place – in fact they are more widespread now than then. However, their ability to serve their purpose has noticeably declined. The two loudest complaints are that the main political parties all have very similar policies, and that their politicians belong to a distinct political class out of touch with most people’s lives. These trends result from successful party machines. Over the decades they have worked out how to maximise their chances of election. For the British General Election in May 2015, the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties already know which constituencies they can ignore because they are bound to either win or lose them, which are the marginal ones to be concerned about and what are the interests of the swing voters in them. In other words only a tiny number of voters matter. While the formal structures of democracy are still in place they are being controlled in the interests of governing oligarchies.

What next?

Most people are more or less aware that their quality of life is going down. There is as yet no sign of consensus about a constructive way forward.

Immigration, the most popular focus of hostility, is the most obvious symptom of the problem. Increasing numbers are driven from their homelands by environmental degradation, poverty and changing patterns of land ownership. Governments find themselves under increasing pressure to refuse entry. This solves nothing since everybody needs somewhere to live.

Now that governments no longer have any commitment to international co-operation they consider the interests of their own electorate regardless of the wider implications. Now that they have long ceased to ask themselves what was the point of economic growth and international trade, they treat them as ends in themselves – and the hungry get hungrier. Now that they have worked out whose vote they need to attract they ignore the majority.

If present trends continue the pressures will continue to increase. I therefore think that, whatever happens to Le Pen and Farage, the politics of protest are here to stay until a new settlement is established, replacing the outdated one we have now. This analysis suggests three needed changes.

Firstly, we need a new internationalism, a new commitment to caring for the well-being of all people regardless of race and nationality. Sixty years ago we had it, but the constitutions of democratically elected nation states have put persistent pressure on governments to care only for their electorates. The new internationalism will need to be built upon a new constitutional internationalism. Maybe we need to work towards an internationally accepted limit to the autonomy of nation states.

Secondly, we need to abandon the cult of economic growth and international trade. They are useful for specific purposes at specific times, but we must stop treating them as ends in themselves. The objectives of government policies should be about making sure everybody’s needs are met and removing obstacles to human flourishing, while avoiding harm to the environment, future generations and other forms of life.

Thirdly, we need to liberate the electoral process from the stranglehold of the political class. Many changes are needed, but one that stands out is that voters need reliable information about a wide range of policy options. While it is impossible to censor public information so as to avoid all bias, we could certainly improve on the present situation where the overwhelming majority of the mass media are controlled by a tiny number of billionaires.

The last time we made changes as big as this, we did it at the end of a devastating war. Can we do it this time without a war? If so, our political leaders will have to do one of two things: either change their policies, or get out of the way.