What has the United Kingdom just done to itself, its people
and the future of its youth? It is difficult to fully understand why a country
in taking a decision about its future will decide on a false option that seems
to negate long-term interests.
And this, just because a total of 17.4 million people out of
over 61 million chose to vote against the United Kingdom’s continued membership
of the EU. More than 50% of these pro-Brexit voters are actually between the
age bracket: 50-70, thus an ageing class of voters has taken a decision to
undermine the future of the younger generation. Pro-EU Prime Minister David
Cameron said he was “courageous and optimistic” when in January 2014, he tried
to justify the need for a referendum.
His words then: “I think the overwhelming majority
of the British people say they want to be in Europe but they want some changes
to that relationship and they would like to be given a say. It is not something
that we should be frightened of. It’s something we should embrace.”
Cameron is now a study in political miscalculation and how over-confidence can
make a political leader misread the people’s moods and expectations. He has
been praised for his “courage” in quickly accepting the people’s verdict and
for tendering his resignation, but I guess he won’t possibly be talking about
courage. He must be full of regrets for presiding over the United Kingdom’s
exit into a nightmare. Britain is better off remaining in the EU.
But on June 23, 2016, the people of Great Britain spoke and
their verdict has been accepted as the status quo, except a miracle happens and
the current petition by the pro-EU protesters results in a second
referendum. As things stand, the people have rejected continued
membership of the European Union.
The implication is that the majority of the people believe
that the United Kingdom is better off on its own. What is quite clear is that
this British exit (Brexit) is more about the rise of xenophobia, bigotry and
isolationism. It is not new. Britain has always looked backward and in-out in
the course of its membership of the EU, oscillating between its commitment to a
greater Europe and the need to preserve British identity and sovereignty.
The British public mind has been driven in recent years by
loud, perpetual carping about too much control from Brussels, and the need to
project Britain first. The ultra nationalists nursed fears about their great
country becoming a colony within a EU empire. They are uncomfortable with the
apparent globalization of British demographics, turning Britain into a country
of many racial colours, with the influx of so many immigrants who are empowered
by EU laws to be free citizens of a united Europe.
The call for a referendum on this matter has now given the
Brexiteers, who just want their country to be left alone by outsiders, the
opportunity they have always wanted. PM Cameron apparently underestimated their
resolve. The Leave EU activists campaigned more vigorously, and deployed every
possible means including blackmail and sentiments. They had the vibrant
support of many political leaders including former London Mayor Boris Johnson,
Michael Gove, and fire-eating UKIP leader, Nigel Farage.
In the event of an intense campaign that divided the country
right down the middle, we witnessed the mainstreaming of xenophobia and
bigotry. Labour MP Jo Cox who was murdered by an irate Eurosceptic for her
pro-EU stance will be remembered as the symbol of how a straightforward, for or
against, political debate turned into hate campaign and a national referendum
became an act of terror. There are many lessons to be learnt from this
instructively low moment in Britain.
What has happened is actually a referendum on the British
establishment and the EU. The EU faces a crisis requiring urgent introspection
and reform of its processes, if it must continue to serve its purpose. Britain
is not the first country to avoid membership of the EU but whereas countries
like Switzerland and Norway can hold out on their own, Brexit comes at great
cost to the British.
At hand is the triumph of emotions over reason, and the
triumph of right wing populism. In many countries of Europe and even at the
moment in the United States, the ultra-conservative political bloc seems to be
in the ascendancy. Questions are being asked about regional integration and
globalization.
The basis for this is largely the manner in which regional
groupings such as the EU disappoint the people. This is made worse by the
failure of the leadership elite and sitting governments. When people are not
happy with their governments or their circumstances, they are ready to make any
choice that looks like an alternative. Opposition and anti-establishment
politicians understand this game too well.
All they need to do is to demonize the establishment, tear
the government of the day into pieces, call names and tell the people that the
time has come for change. Those who claim that they best know how to save
a nation, armed with populist rhetoric in an election time, and have the best
support of the people, in the long run stand a better chance of winning.
Democracy in that fashion is a play-field of emotions, not
facts. It is the same scenario that made Bernie Sanders so popular in the
recent Presidential nomination process in the United States, and also led to
the emergence of Donald Trump as the presumptive Republican Presidential
candidate. Political leaders who don’t want sad outcomes only have to provide
good leadership and meet the people’s expectations.
It is also clear that democracy may not produce rational
outcomes in so far as it awards triumph on the basis of percentages: in Brexit,
the difference is just 4%, 58-42, but the rule of the game is that majority
carries the day, and as in most cases, the winner takes it all.
But should the economic and political destiny of a people be
determined in such formulaic manner? Brexit has left the United Kingdom in a
more divided shape that it was before the referendum. The entire country is in
turmoil. The taste of change doesn’t quite seem so sweet anymore, less than 72
hours after the vote. Young Britons may no longer be able to move freely across
Europe and the experts have predicted rising costs and expectations and greater
economic hardship.
If Brexit stands, more than half of the population will be
thrown into a winter of discontent, wondering why just about 1.3 million voters
(17.4 million (for), 16.1million (against) should have been allowed to mislead
a country. Many Britons will no longer be able to find jobs so easily across
Europe. Hyperdemocracy has resulted in British discombobulation.
But that is democracy: it includes the people’s right to
make mistakes, that is – the right of the simple majority to make mistakes at
the expense of the minority, who may have lost the vote due to poor turn out or
other matters of logistics. Leadership counts. The truth is that
the leadership elite in Britain has also not always being too clear about where
Britain should stand in relation to the rest of Europe.
Even the pro-EU political leaders do not really object to
Britain holding on to its national currency, the Pound, as opposed to the
Euro, and Britain opting out of the idea of being a Schengen
border. Britain also did not join the European Economic Community until
1973, 16 years late. Two years later, there was an exit referendum similar
to this one, won by the pro-Europe campaigners.
Nothing forecloses the possibility of another referendum in
the not too distant future to reverse the present decision. What has happened
is perhaps all correctly British, in the final analysis: a nation yet to come
to terms with certain modern realities, caught between nostalgia and the
future.
This is precisely what the copycat plebiscites should
understand, particularly in Africa where some commentators have been saying
that some African countries on account of Brexit may begin to raise questions
about the relevance of the African Union. The AU is modeled after the EU and it
receives substantial funding support from it, but it has not been as remotely
relevant in addressing the people’s expectations.
In my opinion, there is nothing to fear in terms of a
copycat effect in Africa; most Africans are indifferent about the AU anyway,
they are not even aware of its existence. But as most development aid received
by African countries come from the EU, this may be negatively affected with the
exit of a major country like Britain, and a post-EU Britain may also be
compelled to adjust its trade relations, immigration rules, and development
support for countries in Africa. This, I think, is all there is to it at this
end.
Closer home, the more strident call is for a referendum on
the Nigerian union. In the last few days, I have for example, seen a
strange Nigerian invention called “Biafrexit”. This must be a
joke, symbolically thrown up by those who must know that no Nigerian government
will allow such a vote.
The Brexit vote was not about disintegration, even if
Scotland is now insisting on its independent right to be part of the EU; rather
the vote was more about national and economic identity.
Nigeria is still at the level of debates: we can hold as
many conferences as we like, adjust the Constitution at mutually agreed terms,
but a referendum that could lead to the dissolution of this country is not what
we need, and it is certainly not the lesson from Brexit.
0 Comments