The Democratic Process
In reflecting on the referendum and its aftermath, another question arose for me which I would like to dwell on briefly.
The vote showed a clear gap between the thinking of the cosmopolitan residents of London, who count among their number the political and media establishments, and the rest of the country. It has been a reflex, and an easy one at that, to write off the Leave voters as racists, bigots, xenophobic ‘useful idiots’ being taken advantage of by opportunistic elements of the far right who have no intention of serving the interests they trumpeted during the campaign. There have even been a raft of supposedly data-driven articles pointing out correlations between voter preference and level of education. This trend in politics, to write off the opposition as simply ignorant of ‘the truth’ or under-educated in the complex ways of the world, may have a defensible basis in statistics, but it is a very counter-productive way to conduct public discourse. Nobody will take on an opposing viewpoint if your argument is that they are basically too under-educated to understand what is good for them. Also, the suggestion that the other side is simply ignorant and wrong totally cuts their experience and reality out of the conversation.
Furthermore, there is an invitation in this current crucible of frustration and opinion. It is an invitation to examine what the purpose of a democracy is, or rather, what its true function could or should be. The referendum showed that certain parts of the country feel very differently about the current state of affairs to other parts. This in itself is no great revelation. But it is not all catastrophe and foolishness — it is perhaps a reminder of one of the more ingenious (and most easily forgotten) by-products of democracy: shared purpose.
For at least twenty or thirty years, huge swathes of the British populace have been left out of meaningful discussions on the direction of the country — an urban, international, macroeconomic agenda has been pursued at the expense of a great deal of local concerns. In short, many people have been thrown overboard by the stampede of successive governments to serve a very specific idea of what society is supposed to be like and who is supposed to benefit from it. With increasing speed, wealth has been concentrated in fewer hands. The focus of social development has likewise been on cities, on concentrated conurbations where populations are gathered at higher densities into efficient, easier-to-serve polities. The idea that there are many ways to live one’s life, many paths to pursue in the realisation of one’s purpose, has given way to the one ‘best’ way: the technologically dense, centralised urban existence of the ‘knowledge’ economy. For those who pre-dated this shift, or who through gaps in opportunity or aptitude did not embrace this change, life has become harder, less rewarding and less hopeful. A chasm has opened, unheeded, and the referendum brought this worrying gulf between citizens into the light.
It is not unreasonable to suggest that if everyone in the UK had benefited from the status quo over the past twenty or thirty years to the same extent as Londoners had, their votes in the referendum might have reflected the same belief that Londoners showed in internationalism, globalism and economic continuity. That a majority of British voters chose economic dislocation over continuity speaks volumes about their current (and recent) economic experience. 48% of the nation are potentially on the hook for a choice made by 52% of the nation. At first glance this might seem harsh or unfair, but is it? Perhaps, if democracy is a process, then it serves to remind those who guide the direction of the country that they must account for the needs of all citizens or risk the discontent of those citizens forcing the country to veer from their chosen direction.
In short, if Britain had done a better job of including all of its citizens in its plans for economic growth and global engagement, its citizens might have been happier to continue in that direction. But when economic growth is mostly centred on two or three key cities, when global engagement mostly results in a perceived (or actual) loss of local industry, when development becomes a zero-sum game of stagnation for some in favour of advancement for others, it is not only understandable but, in compassionate and societal terms, arguably necessary for the hand of the dissatisfied majority to grab the wheel and yank it in a different direction.
Britain’s course has been changed by the referendum, even if no great upheaval comes to pass. What has changed is that those who have benefitted, even marginally, from the way things have been for the past few decades have now been reminded of the existence of a great number of fellow citizens who have not been so lucky, who through no fault or choice of their own have been left behind, marginalised or ignored by the mainstream direction of the country’s political class.
It’s a funny phrase, ‘fellow citizens’. Politically and socially, democracy demands that we not forget the other members of our society, however we define it (whether by borders or passports or kinship), lest they remind us of their existence by exercising the power of the majority.
Maybe the referendum has been a good thing, not in an immediate economic sense, or because it is wonderful to have divisive rhetoric and anger directed from one to another, but because it has furthered the process of democracy, which is the consistent and occasionally inconvenient reminder that all citizens are equal not only in terms of their rights but also in terms of their say over where their country is headed. If we leave behind too many, they will choose a different path, and it may not be a path we like. This is not a crime, it is not fascism, it is not racist or unfair or any of these things — it is a reminder that we, as a society, owe it to each other and to ourselves to be compassionate towards everyone in our society, or else.
Democracy, perhaps, is the process of ensuring that the wrong outcome for too many eventually creates serious consequences for all. It may take a long time, and it may arise in a form we struggle to understand, agree with or recognise, but in the end, that process, if we engage with it meaningfully and with the intention to progress together, as a united body politic with common cause, is a good thing for us, individually and collectively. To be mindful of the needs of others is important, an often bandied about truism, but democracy offers the steely assurance that if we allow that ideal to fade from our sight and our thoughts, there will be consequences which we cannot predict and which, once unleashed, cannot be controlled.
In short, if we are disunited then we must work harder to unite, not turn on one another for not being on side. If a particular path benefits only a few, it will eventually be rejected unless efforts are made to share those benefits with everyone.
Perhaps democracy is not just about getting rid of leaders we don’t like or who don’t do what we want them to do. Maybe it is also a method by which we can find out what it is that we are doing that is not working for everyone, and adjust our course accordingly, a sort of scientific method for society, a mode of inquiring into what it is we want and what it is that we need.
The existence of ‘fellow citizens’ who disagree with us is not an inconvenience or a betrayal, it is an invitation to better understand our own actions and their impact on others who we seldom see and sadly (if naturally) seldom consider as we go about our daily lives.
Let’s hope that the fault lines in Britain that have been exposed by this referendum end up providing us with a map to greater compassion and more meaningful and inclusive action for all citizens, together.
