When the dust settled and most of the emotions faded away, while reviewing the leaflets used in the British referendum of 23rd June, I began to wonder what had happened to us. Why did we allow misinterpretations and false promises (probably to a certain extent on both sides of the campaign) to prevail over common sense, to shake and abuse the common values of humanity, responsibility, respect and solidarity? Junk food, junk politics – is it how we really want to live?
Have we forgotten to think, to double check, to question and verify what is sold to us as the facts, the ultimate truths? How can it be that we first act, vote, and only then start to think, analyze and reflect? Why do we start to think over what we have actually voted for, only after voting and why are we allowing absurd populist slogans such as “Help protect your hospital, vote leave” to shape our votes without even reflecting on the logic (or its absence) of such a statement?
Since the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2008, one cannot escape the feeling that we live in very uncertain times, marked by a rhetoric of insecurity, vagueness, fear and radicalization, drastically abused by politicians, media and campaigners. Like in a fable tale, emotions seem to overcome reason. However, a vote based purely on emotions cannot be a sustainable vote according to democratic standards. Such a vote blows wind in the sails of populists. Their favorite instruments are unstable moods, turbulent emotions, simple ideas and stark contrasts. Typically, they choose an enemy and engage in a fight: against crime, corruption, immigration. The political scene is their arena, in which takes place the battle between good and evil. The division is clear: black and white, salvation and sin, the just and the unjust, the elite and the people. They claim to relay the worries of the marginalized in very simple and often radical terms, they often style themselves as antiestablishment and are very critical of representative democracy and democratic institutions, while at the same time promoting direct democracy.
We have all the rights to be angry, disappointed and disillusioned with politics, with the morals of our politicians, with the state of global economy, with climate change, but when using the most important instrument we have in democracy – our free vote, we should better reflect on what we are voting for and where we are heading to.
Traditional media aren’t helping. Constrained by a demand-driven business model and adapting to the pressures of a digitalized age where news travel faster than the wind, emotions dominate and individual stories monopolize the attention, they overlook positive news, focus on the short term and on simple and catchy topics. By doing so, they fail to play their role of raising the debate on truly important issues and bringing knowledge to the public.
Intellectual laziness, that is, the lack of willingness to discuss important and controversial issues and to reflect on innovative solutions, is spreading around the world. This might be more dangerous than any protest anti or pro establishment. In addition, subconsciously, we indulge in scapegoating, as there is always someone to blame – the immigrants, the politicians, and why not the weather? In the British referendum, one gets the feeling that the villain was mostly the EU and Brussels elites: how did they dare, after having imposed peace and prosperity on the continent, try to impose it on the islands as well?
But let’s stop for a while and reflect – for five minutes at least – on what are the good and what are the bad things that happened to us, to our friends and family because of the EU. Let’s make our own list of pros and cons. Let’s not rely on others. Let it be our list as this vote or any other vote is our own vote, for we vote in our name now or in the future, so why do we let other people impose something on us? It is the right of campaigners to campaign and to lobby, but it is our right to double check their arguments and let the alarm bells in our conscience ring. What happened to the notion of credibility and accountability of democratic systems?
The UK referendum was only an example – part of a global phenomenon of populism. Other votes and referenda seem to be based on the same mechanism and principle – project fear. Fear started to be omnipresent and misused.
What can we do against it? How can we counterbalance the frustration, escape manipulation and increase our political participation? How can we better scrutinize information, campaigners, press and politicians?
I think both autonomous and organized civil society have a role to play here, in the framework of a bottom up approach, as change has to come from the local level as only this level is able to counterbalance the forces of globalization. We shouldn’t be afraid of globalization. We shouldn’t be afraid of the others, of the diverse – let the diversity work for us, starting from each and every local community. Numerous studies show the success achieved in diverse, multicultural societies that boost innovative solutions and creative problem solving.
I don’t know what the final outcome of Brexit will mean. Nobody knows. Media talk about hard Brexit, soft Brexit. Do they even know what it means? Even those who seem to know, do not really know. I only know that ignorance and xenophobia have led to the biggest tragedies in human history. The EU is a phenomenal project that secured peace and stability for the longest period in Europe’s history. It opened the borders and provided for stability, prosperity based on its four freedoms, the four principles of free exchange of goods, people, services and capital. As many politicians have said before, the UK will be missed in the EU and I hope the EU will be missed in the UK as well.
We are lucky, living in an interesting age. Populism is an integral part of democracy and it can be both a danger and a source of inspiration. Let it be a source of inspiration.