Brexit and the Crisis of Democracy
In his paean to the supposedly endangered pillars of British democracy, Justice Secretary and Euro-rebel Michael Gove made the stirring assertion that “We showed the world what a free people could achieve if they were allowed to govern themselves”. Not only do the mildly sinister post-colonial undertones speak for themselves, but the irony of such words from the mouth of an avowed Unionist, virulently opposed to further devolution of power to other parts of the United Kingdom, is truly gobsmacking. At the heart of such a claim, however, lies the central tenet of the Brexiteers’ rallying cry – namely that Britain’s membership of the European Union constitutes an irreversible incursion into its national sovereignty and democratic foundations. This attempt to cast the forthcoming referendum as a David and Goliath-esque clash between plucky little Britannia and the undemocratic behemoth of Brussels, will undoubtedly strike a chord with many voters. Yet here more than ever, it is vital to see past such simplistic political rhetoric, and to recognise that, contrary to this scenario, membership of the European Union is essential to preserving both national sovereignty and the democratic values we hold so dear.
Perhaps the most fundamental flaw in the Eurosceptic vision of democracy is its innate anachronism. When it comes to post-war international systems of governance, conventional sovereign and democratic norms no longer apply. For better or for worse, Britain finds itself embedded in a complex web of multilateral agreements and treaties, which include the UN, NATO, the OSCE and the IMF, to name but a few. In many ways, the European Union is just another one of these, and just another forum through which individual nations can further their own interests on the international stage. The ceding of some elements of national legislation to a higher body should therefore be seen not as a threat to democracy, but as a means of collectively pursuing pragmatic and often noble causes, in an increasingly globalised world. Whilst there is widespread consensus that the EU has some way to go in achieving an appropriate balance between the competing doctrines of ‘supranationalism’ and ‘intergovernmentalism’, allegations of a democratic deficit at the heart of the Union betray a profound misunderstanding both of its inner workings and of its primary function. Aside from the fact that it lacks a conventional ‘demos’, much of the EU’s work is principally functional in nature – such as ensuring the harmonisation of free-trade rules or continued energy security. In the resolution of such cross-border issues, Gove et al’s outdated notions of democracy vanish into obscurity – as the pooling of national sovereignty becomes a necessity rather than a choice.
If anything, the European Union and similar international bodies, serve to curb the uglier aspects of unbridled nationalism, populism and autocracy – many of which are justified by their perpetrators under the banner of this outdated notion of ‘democracy’. British voters need only look as far as their Polish or Hungarian counterparts to see the results of internationally accepted norms and regulations being defied; witness the dismemberment of constitutional courts and the erosion of a pluralistic media in those countries. These are not things to be taken for granted and are precisely the institutions which only an empowered political and economic union can protect effectively.
Thus, the Eurosceptic argument falls short on a number of fronts. Britain’s membership of the EU is critical in enhancing the influence of ordinary citizens over policy formulated on an international level. This is often policy which has a profound impact on the social and economic wellbeing of every individual, such as the cross-European mitigation of climate change or a co-ordinated effort to prevent excess market power and tax avoidance by colossal multinational corporations such as Google and Microsoft. Pierre Bourdieu provides a succinct definition of democracy as a ‘coercion minimising device’ (in other words, people’s ability to prevent and resist the coercive powers of a political order). If Britain were to leave the EU and as most people foresee, adopt either the Swiss of the Norwegian model, it would still be subject to the vast majority of rules permitting single market access, and yet lose almost all power to minimise their coercive effect. In a flash, the British parliament would forfeit its right to influence and dictate European legislation, to which it would still be categorically bound. In this sense, the greatest threat to British democracy is not Brussels itself, but the the prospect of Britain surrendering its established place in the seat of power.
David Cameron is therefore right to claim that a departure from the European Union would do no more than afford an “illusion of sovereignty”. In reality, such sovereignty is a chimera and a Brexit would dramatically reduce democratic control over both international and domestic law-making. From a British perspective, the real contemporary crisis of democracy lies not just in the barring of ethnic minorities from a Trump Rally in Chicago or in the silencing of humanitarian NGOs by Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán – but can be found much closer to home, and could ultimately be decided on 23 June.
