A response to “How a Strange Massachusetts Election Helps Explain Britain’s Brexit Chaos” by Max Fisher (NYT)
The recent events surrounding Britain’s controversial Brexit referendums has highlighted a major source of democratic erosion in today’s struggling democracies.
The U.K.’s drawn-out exit from the European Union began with a non-binding popular referendum in mid-2016 where voters called for a Brexit from the European Union by a slim margin. Following this referendum came months of debate of how the U.K. should approach an exit from the E.U., with much concern being raised into the economic and trade ramifications that would accompany a complete, all ties severed, exit. Now the time has come for Britain to establish its terms of exit with the E.U. and follow through with their resolution but parliament has been unable to support a concrete plan of exit. This confusion in parliament has caused for Britain’s declaration of divorce from the E.U. to be postponed multiple times and internal debates as to whether there should even be a Brexit in the first place.
In a recent article published by the New York Times, “How a Strange Massachusetts Election Helps Explain Britain’s Brexit Chaos” (2019), Max Fisher placed blame for the confusion on the initial 2016 popular referendum indicating that its “Leave” or “Stay” voting choices were too general. More specifically he described that there were many factions who supported leaving the E.U. but could not agree on what the conditions of the Brexit-deal should be (i.e. “soft Brexit, hard Brexit, Norway-style Brexit, Canada-style Brexit”, etc.). Therefore, he argued, that these different pro-Brexit groups should not have been combined as one single “Leave” vote, and instead should have been separated on the ballots according to their Brexit conditions. Under this argument he maintained that if the “Leave” vote had been divided into its constituent groups, the “Stay” vote would have won by a clear majority.
This analysis of the current state of Britain’s voting system is quite worrisome concerning the democratic resiliency of the country as a whole, as it implies that the government has (accidentally or otherwise) misrepresented the will of the majority of the populace in a major political decision. In his book, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (1971), Robert Dahl argues that the “key characteristic of a democracy is the continuing responsiveness of a government to the preferences of its citizens” in an inclusive voting system open to contestation. Britain, in this regard, has failed democratically, by supporting a measure that most of its voters have not supported.
The U.K.’s struggle with the Brexit decision is dangerous because it has the potential to cause a crisis of legitimacy and effectiveness of its democratic system of governance as described by Seymour Lipset in his article, “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy” (1959). The U.K. government’s spearheading of an initiative that most voters oppose may cause for citizens to feel that parliament does not effectively govern according to the will of the people, and therefore seek other (less democratic) governmental systems that they feel will. In their article, “Liberal Democracy’s Crisis of Confidence” (2018), Richard Wike and Janell Fetterolf have shown that these crises have already caused citizens of democratic countries to exhibit some degree of un-democratic sentiments, with many displaying an openness to “a [governmental] system in which a strong leader can make decisions without interference from parliament or the courts”.
Another, equally frightening, consequence that the Brexit initiative might have is that it may discourage a subset of its population (more specifically, those who chose to stay in the E.U.) from participating in further public votes and make them open to extremist rhetoric. In her book, Strangers in Their Own Land (2016), Arlie Hochschild documented the sentiments of Louisianans who became disillusioned with the American political system and felt that the government did not care about or account for their voices when creating public policy. If U.K. citizens begin to share the sentiments of these Louisianans because they feel that their votes don’t matter, all further public referendums would be less democratic because they would (unintentionally) consistently not account for the votes of a large portion of the population and foster further resentment inside of these groups. As described by Yascha Mounk in his article, “Pitchfork Politics: The Populist Threat to Liberal Democracy”, the resentment that forms within these groups is also of some concern as it allows for them to be more easily coerced by the possibly undemocratic rhetoric of populist politicians who can begin to erode democratic norms in a government if they are elected to power.
The British government’s advancing with Brexit negotiations should not be viewed as the beginning of the end of democracy in the U.K., as one bad policy decision does not a dictatorship make, but it should serve as a reminder to developed governments that more care must be taken in the creation of voting systems so as they do not unintentionally misrepresent the will of the people.
*Photo by Tasnim News Agency, “Thousands Protest Against Brexit in London’s Trafalgar Square” (tasnimnews.com), Creative Commons Zero license.
Hi Christian,
Thank you for taking the time to discuss this topic. I agree with your conclusion that the United Kingdom’s fight over “Brexit” does present a challenge for its democracy. Max Fisher is correct in observing that by only presenting two black-and-white options, the government created the quandary over leaving the European Union that its parliament faces today. The misrepresentation of the variety of views that U.K. voters held on exiting the union created a coalition based off the “leave” option; but that never would have materialized if the multiple options on how to exit the E.U. would have been presented. U.K. voters were essentially forced into one of two camps that had a clear divide. The subsequent confusion and bitter arguments in Parliament are evidence for how little thought was put into the non-binding referendum.
I also concur with your point that while Brexit is not “the beginning of the end” for U.K. democracy, it is a good example of what not to do in a voting system because of the potential backlash from voters. The presumption of the U.K. government that the majority of its voters wanted to leave the E.U. without considering the route of doing so is a clear sign that the democratically elected government failed to represent and uphold the will of the majority of its citizens. Especially given that only 72.1 percent of the voting population did participate coupled with a clear majority of young people voting to stay (Indy 100/The Guardian). Both statistics should dishearten anyone who believed that Brexit is what most U.K. voters wanted. To further the issue, as you mentioned evidence provided by academic research and media coverage shows that voters will pullback from participating in the democratic process if they feel their involvement does not matter. This could create a breeding ground for extreme political thought, furthering democratic erosion at the personal and perhaps national level. If the majority of the population and the youth of the U.K. already feel disaffected by its democracy now, the future looks grim.
This is an interesting analysis of Britain’s Brexit dilemma from an angle that I haven’t seen receiving much discussion in the media. The parallel Max Fisher draws in his NYT article between the 2016 Brexit referendum and the recent mayoral election in Fall River, Massachusetts suggests that the referendum was not a completely unique incident, but rather, one example of an error that can occur in any democratic system. Analyses like Fisher’s, which examine the causes and consequences of the referendum from a more procedural perspective, have been arguably underrepresented in the media discussions of Brexit. Most analyses seem to treat the referendum as an isolated, even fluke incident caused by low voter turnout or political manipulation of the public.
Whatever the causes of the 2016 vote to leave the European Union, I agree that the British government is now having to carry out plans which a majority of British people disagree with. As you explain here, this is deeply problematic for the country’s democracy. The flip side, of course, is that backing out of the current Brexit plans by holding a second referendum would also undermine British democracy. This course of action would require ignoring the results of a legitimate referendum, flawed question or not. The British government is in the difficult position of having to take undemocratic action, no matter what lawmakers decide. As you point out at the end of this blog, hopefully governments around the world can use Britain’s dilemma as warning to be more careful in their design of future voting systems. That would represent at least one positive outcome of this unfortunate situation.
This post does a great job in highlighting the shortcomings of the actual Brexit vote, not just the ramifications that the vote has for Britain and the rest of the EU. I was unaware that the voting procedure itself was a cause of concern, although obviously voters have different views on the path Brexit should take that cannot be encompassed by a “Leave” vote. However, I think offering different options for “Leave”, while keeping only one vote for “Stay”, would create more issues associated with the vote. Since the margin was so close on the original vote, only one other option available to those voting to leave would have split the vote and resulted in Brexit’s failure, which again doesn’t provide much of a democratic outcome if the volume on “Leave” altogether was higher than “Stay”. I’m curious to see what the solution would be to right this supposed democratic wrong. Would you advocate for another referendum on the issue? Especially if people that voted to stay feel like they are now on the fringes, and that the government is unresponsive to their opinions (as Hochschild claims), would the vote have a similar outcome? Theresa May has fervently disproved another referendum open to a public vote, but with her constant failure to deliver an agreeable Brexit package threatening the UK’s political and economic stability, that fervor may deteriorate. Also, timeliness here matters, as deadlines are fast approaching and cannot be postponed indefinitely. This entire situation has been chaotic and messy, but ultimately was enacted by the people. If another referendum were to happen, would original “Leave” voters that have become disillusioned with the process change their vote? My speculation would be yes. In terms of democratic outcomes, would it be beneficial to include these new sub-categories on the new ballot, if it were to happen? That might be a solution to provide alternative options that people didn’t have access to before, potentially maintaining the democratic nature of the Brexit vote.