On June 23rd, 2016, the course of both European politics and global affairs took a drastic turn. In a vote of the people, a European superpower separated itself from the institution binding it to its closest neighbors, trade partners, and allies. However, this decision has left everyone with more questions than answers. During this time of upheaval, it is only natural to call into question the ideal that brought the United Kingdom to its Brexit decision in the first place: democracy.
The U.K. referendum gave its citizens the chance to dictate government action based solely on the will of the people – the truest strength of democracy. However, given the extensive ramifications of a decision such as this one, was it really best to leave this will unfiltered?
The repercussions of Brexit are far greater than the individual interests of citizens angered by immigration policy and economic strife. To hold a rushed referendum without publicizing relevant research and potential outcomes is to neglect these pertinent issues indefinitely. Therefore, although the idea of direct democracy is an upstanding one, the execution of this particular trial exposed the fragility of a system that relies only on the wishes of the people.
Much of this debate is rooted in the migration crisis, a period marked by the influx of Middle Eastern and African refugees to EU nations. Triggered by fears of terrorism and job insecurity, frustrated members of the U.K. voted to leave the establishment that proved incapable of handling this crisis with its weak immigration policy. However, this issue is not black and white. In fact, research shows that migrants are not taking jobs from citizens, but rather filling positions that Europeans find undesirable and supporting aging Social Security systems.[1] The referendum, while reflective of genuine internal concerns, fails to account for these greater continental benefits.
The reality of this departure is much more threatening than British voters could have foreseen. With Europe’s democratic body weaker than ever after the loss of one of its greatest powers, extremism has its chance to capture the attention of Europeans looking for change.[2] Leaders like Putin will surely exploit the EU’s current vulnerability by promoting euroskeptic groups across the continent,[3] adding pressure to the already fragile system.
It seems questionable that a decision bearing such grave global consequences should be made solely by a small majority of one nation’s citizens. In fact, only 52% of U.K. citizens supported the motion to sever ties with the EU, discounting the fact that 70% of Europeans see the separation as negative for Europe as a whole.[4] Therefore, while a referendum is ideal for settling internal tensions, such an action is not satisfactory when dealing with more worldly matters.
Is direct democracy always the right choice? Is Brexit leaving people questioning the institution we hold at such a high regard? The answer is complicated at best, but it is certain that democracy will never be the same again.
Op-ed was written as an assignment for my Fall 2016 Comparative Politics course with Dr. Jaira J. Harrington, Anna Julia Cooper Center Postdoctoral Fellow in Politics and International Affairs.
[1] Glazer, Sarah. "European Migration Crisis." CQ Researcher 25, no. 28 (July 31, 2015): 649-72.
[2] Beary, Brian. “European Unrest.” CQ Researcher 25, no. 2 (January 9, 2015): 25-48.
[3] Foxall, Andrew. “Why Putin Loves Brexit.” The New York Times. July 13, 2016.
[4] Stokes, Bruce. “Euroskepticism Beyond Brexit.” Pew Research Center. June 7, 2016.
