For the Common Good

I don’t intend for this piece to be American commentary on British politics. To me, Brexit is the latest example I can use to make general points about political discourse around the world and the responsibilities we share.

Thursday’s Brexit vote has left many fearful of the future, and more than that, it’s caused some to even question democracy. Since I’m currently in London, which voted to “remain” in the European Union, I’ve heard mostly from those who oppose the outcome of the vote. Some are questioning who the “others” are who voted to leave the EU and what their motives are. There’s shock about how and why this happened.

But what I’ve actually heard most is a really encouraging response: many of those disappointed by the Brexit vote acknowledge that they were blindsided by the outcome but need to respect it. Beyond that, some have recognized the need to engage in discussion with those who hold different views so that they can start to understand the other perspective(s), and perhaps build a more unified future.

Even before the vote, I saw numerous Facebook posts calling for unity and respect regardless of the outcome. People acknowledged that voting to leave didn’t automatically make you a racist, and voting to stay didn’t necessarily mean you supported the bureaucratic and oft-considered undemocratic structure of the European Union.

Which leads me to my first point: while some are saying that democracy failed, I say that it did not. (N.B. The merits of democracy in this modern age can be debated separately, but that discussion is not within the purview of this piece.) Democracy is a framework that provides for the opinions of all to be heard and the majority’s to become the law of the land. In my opinion, both campaigns really failed to deliver clear, concise, factual arguments. Campaigning was emotional and voting became emotional. Is this frustrating? Maybe. Can and should the system be better? Arguably, yes. Is that the fault of democracy? No. All UK citizens were free to express their opinions, ask questions, and discuss with their friends, families, neighbors and fellow citizens before this referendum.

All of this raises a more fundamental question about democracy: if we’re (not just in the UK, but around the world) dissatisfied with the choices we’re being given (e.g. our candidates, our policies, etc.), why aren’t we doing more to give ourselves better ones? We have to raise the general level of public awareness and debate everywhere, and we have to do it with love and respect for one another if we want to build a peaceful and productive civilization. This means listening to each other and engaging in respectful discourse; being thoughtful and honest when presenting our arguments.

Current political debate often consists of a single layer of somewhat superficial talking points often aimed at discrediting the other. It’s time to get real. It’s time to call out those within our own “ranks” who aren’t serving the greater good, who are too focused on demagoguery. There are fundamental disagreements about what is best for the greater good. I can respect that, as long as everyone is willing to listen to each other and entertain the possibility that they might learn something. I’m willing to listen to you as long as you’re willing to listen to me.

A democracy is a living entity. It requires regular maintenance and involvement from its citizens. In fact, it is only as strong as its citizens. We are meant to actively participate in the election of our leaders and the formulation of our laws. This starts at the local level — being involved in our communities — caring about what’s happening right around us and what’s happening to our neighbors. So if you think democracy failed because you believe the “right” side didn’t win, then maybe your side didn’t do a good enough job convincing the public, and maybe you didn’t do your part.

Which brings me to my second point: we all need to feel free to express our opinions without fear of ridicule. Something that makes the Brexit debate somewhat unique and interesting to me is that it is not along party lines. Here is something that transcended everyday political ideology. Perhaps this is an opportunity to move away from the thick dividing lines that separate political parties and simply talk policy.

We’ve become so addicted to labels. It’s much easier, and certainly tidier, to slap a label on a person or a group and put them in a certain box. It’s an efficient way of separating them and us, dismissing before listening. To me, there’s nothing better than when informed people respectfully discuss and debate with open minds. There’s a reason some of the best debaters, lawyers and even politicians develop arguments contrary to theirs before making them— if you are to be effective, you need to understand the full situation, including the tenets of the opposing argument. We’re all entitled to our own opinions and should honor our values, but we need to be willing to change our minds if convinced of what’s “right,” regardless of our usual ideologies.

In modern politics, sometimes people are afraid to speak up and engage in discussion and debate because they have dissenting views. The fear of being outcast at work or in social or even family situations can keep people from speaking their minds. Not only is this wrong, it’s harmful to all political agendas and can lead to extremism over time. It’s also how some people find themselves shocked at electoral outcomes. What’s more, it often perpetuates further divisiveness: in reaction to losing, there is immediate disassociation with the winning side. (“I don’t understand those people.” But no desire or attempt to try to understand them.)

Let’s take Donald Trump, for example. He elicits strong opinions by most everyone, regardless of whether they like him or dislike him. So as practical application, can we find it within ourselves to have real conversations with each other about why we think he is or is not the best man to become the President of the United States? Conversation doesn’t have to be, and probably shouldn’t be, entirely void of emotion, but ultimately it needs to be in service to the greater good. It’s not about you or me, it’s about us. And at the end, if we disagree, we can happily agree to disagree but be satisfied that we’ve shared our opinions and have heard others.

The sad irony is that for all the criticism and concern about the insular attitudes and policies of Donald Trump, and maybe to some extent Brexiters, currently some who oppose those campaigns choose to isolate themselves from those who support them. In other words, while harping on inclusiveness and tolerance, they choose not to show tolerance for those with a different opinion. A swift judgment is made that others are inferior and not worthy of consideration and discussion. And no doubt, many on the other side are doing the same thing. This division is what’s causing greater distrust and polarization.

But again, this is only some, not all. As I say, I’ve been encouraged so far by basic public response to Brexit. The truth is, none of us knows how this will play out in the long run, and I’m holding out hope that it could still end up bringing positive change across the board. We’re in the midst of chaos right now since this structure is threatening to crumble, but there’s always opportunity to do something great. If nothing else, I hope that all of us, regardless of country, can use this as an opportunity to reflect on where we are, how we got here, what we believe and why, how we view those with other views, where we want to go and what we’re willing to do to get there.