One of the few good things about Britain’s vote to leave the European Union is the rich curriculum of lessons it offers leaders and electorates in other democracies. History is unlikely to be kind to British Prime Minister David Cameron. Last week’s referendum was not the product of broad popular demand. Cameron called it to solve a short-term political problem and get through an election. His Conservative Party was split on Europe and feared hemorrhaging votes to the right-wing, anti-Europe, anti-immigrant U.K. Independence Party (UKIP).
Cameron figured that kicking his troubles down the road by promising a future plebiscite on Europe could make them go away. Instead, he turned a normal electoral challenge into a profound crisis that could lead to the breakup of his country while threatening Europe’s future. The devastating complaint of Martin Schulz, the president of the European Parliament: “A whole continent is taken hostage because of an internal fight in the Tory party.”
Don’t trash democracy or the voters. Where complicated choices are involved — and Brexit defines complexity — leaders in representative democracies need the guts to make hard calls and submit themselves to voters afterward. They should not use referendums purely to evade responsibility. Ethno-nationalism is on the rise across Europe, and this vote will only intensify the trend. But in so many nations, including our own, technological change, globalization and financialization force the left-out to stare at prosperity from a great distance. In their justified frustration, they often see immigration as of a piece with the other changes in the world that they deplore.
Responsible officials should always be ready to denounce racism. But their job description also requires them to provide realistic policy answers to quell the rage. If center-right and center-left politicians fail to do this, their parties will remain suspect. Yet if Britain’s vote is understandable, it’s also a cause for sadness. It’s a vote against a more open world and a rejection of the idea that democracies can actually gain power by pooling sovereignty and seeking goals in common.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ecb_story.html