The other day I wrote a blog post arguing that the prevalence
of authoritarian populist political tropes in the U.K are largely a response to
the particular difficulties surrounding the 2016 referendum. I tried to sketch
out a story of how I think this happened, focussing on both the referendum
campaign and problems of implementing the result. What I realise I didn’t do is
properly justify why I think that
approach is likely to be correct, so this post is a kind of follow up
explanation of that argument. As mentioned in the previous post, this kind of
explanation can be contrasted with a second kind of explanation which stress
the growth of these attitudes as a separate phenomenon, which may in turn be
used to explain why Brexit has panned out the way it has. That kind of narrative
might focus on longer term issues (deindustrialisation, low wage growth since
the financial crisis etc) and comparisons with developments of seemingly similar
movements internationally. The two aren’t completely incompatible. Perhaps the
latter line of reasoning might some explanation as to why Leave won (though it’s
quite possible Leave could have won in different circumstances), while the
former developments subsequently, or perhaps they are both at work. But I think
the distinction is under appreciated and it is worth setting out why the first
kind of story might be a more useful explanation of what has happened in the UK
post 2016. Finally I would like to contrast this first kind of explanation with
one which one which sees Brexit as presenting a clash between representative
and ‘direct’ democracy, which I think misreads what Leave supporters are really
asking for. The reasons for this are as follows:
1.
While it is true that there is a strong
correlation amongst voters between remain/leave support and authoritarian/liberal
attitudes, there is little evidence to suggest that authoritarian attitudes
have generally growing in popularity in the UK. The public is generally speaking more
positive about immigration and less in favour of the death penalty now than it
was a few decades ago, though there was a brief jump in saliency of immigration
around the time of the referendum. What the referendum did was divide the
population along these lines and give greater saliency to certain questions.
2.
Most people do not spend much time thinking
about the theoretical justifications for democracy, why it is a good or bad
thing, or what it is supposed to mean. The first idea most people have about
democracy is that it is about putting things to a vote, in which the most
popular option wins. That is what people have most immediate experience of, and
also reflects the fact that ‘democracy’ is typically understood as something in
contrast with a dictatorship, i.e where an unelected and small clique rule over
a majority. The first point is particularly true of the U.K, with an electoral
system that historically produces majority governments meaning that British
democracy has a ‘winner takes all’ feel to it. It seems natural enough that
many people should adopt a winner takes all approach to the referendum, and that
majoritarian ideas like ‘the will of the people’ should be popular in contrast
with appeals to compromise or parliamentary process.
3.
There are almost no calls for a move towards
more direct democracy generally. If this was important over and above the
specific question of Brexit, you would expect
people to be advocating more referendums about a greater number of issues, with
at least some interest in how this could be made to work.
4.
Strongman politics, the idea of an individual
implementing a popular will that is frustrated by corrupt or irrational
institutions, always has its appeal, and you can see latent support for some of
its surrounding ideas in any functioning liberal democracy. Just look at the
popular trope that literal application of the law as argued by clever lawyers
leads to criminals getting off the hook. It is not such a big move to progress
from this to dismissing judges as politically motivated. Or look at the role anti-politics
and suspicion of politics has played in ‘normal’ elections (how many successful
opposition parties have claimed or heavily implied their opponents are
corrupt?). Strongman politics of the kind Johnson is currently trying to
capitalise on plays into deep rooted suspicions of institutions and
politicians. The referendum result did not create these attitudes, but it gave
them focus and saliency as they related to an immediate issue- whether Parliament
could or would implement Brexit.
No comments:
Post a Comment