UK's democracy in practice

Its principles were witnessed during the Brexit debate

The United Kingdom has been the cause for exasperation not only among European presidents, prime ministers and Eurocrats, but also political and economic partners across the Atlantic and emerging economies alike. The object has been the apparent chaos created in charting a way out of Europe viz. Brexit and its multi-pronged fallout. Its own leaders of all parties and from within the ruling conservatives themselves aired individual — and altering — views, disagreeing openly over the best way to, or not to, exit. Penguin published a collection of amusing Brexit cartoons comprising a popular party gift. WhatsApp became a steady source of Brexit satire.

Britain’s inability to find a way out reflected a short-sightedness in anticipating the complexities inherent in designing any interim or long-term arrangement that would facilitate a painless yet honourable exit from Europe. Arguably Theresa May, ex-prime minister, was viewed as having conducted insufficient consultation with Parliament if not her Cabinet before agreeing on a Brexit package with the European Union.

Illustration by Binay Sinha

When May took her package back to her Cabinet and Parliament, there was oxymoronic muted uproar. Several members of her Cabinet resigned sequentially even as new versions of the package emerged from her office. Famously, Boris Johnson, her foreign minister — who had earlier competed with her but lost the leadership contest of the Conservatives — led the resignations. Indeed, the Conservative membership — a group of merely over 100,000 members — have just elected him their leader. It has been pointed out that, effectively, a minuscule electorate has named Britain’s new prime minister. It is reminiscent of Britain’s June 2016 referendum on Brexit that passed on less than 40 per cent of the electorate voting in favour (since many failed to vote).

Returning to the process of Brexit itself, however, there is an interesting vignette to learn from the sequence of events — May’s various packages, Parliament’s quick rejections, her refusal to give up and trudging back to the drawing board, returning to Parliament with calibrated versions, colleagues and Parliament continuing not to accept any, and at the end leaving her with few sympathisers. The cycle revealed a fundamental conviction and a fearless practice of democracy that stood out as an example across democracies of the world.

Few if any British friends or acquaintances have grasped this point. To some extent, this opacity could be explained by a widely held view from the beginning of May’s tenure as prime minister that she would have to resign before Brexit. That force gathered momentum from the second Parliament rejected her first package for Brexit. What observers missed was that the quintessential element of democracy, of the freedom to express one’s individual view, was time and again proved to be possible in the UK’s democracy.

This freedom transcended party — Conservatives and Labour, as well as others — lines, the Cabinet — some members agreeing, some defying, some resigning, and later even changing their views, rather than acquiescing to the prime minister. Members of Parliament formed cross-party groupings if they agreed on an identifiable route out. At least four major alternative packages were put up by them but rejected by fellow MPs. One conservative member, Sir Oliver Letwin, stood out in his attempt to constructively mesh together alternative views; even he did not succeed.  

May could have walked out of Europe without a ‘deal’ but she did not, though she did verbalise “no deal is better than a bad deal”. May repeatedly tried to find a solution, though the wheels of democracy reigned to overwhelm her. Finally, on July 24, May departed 10 Downing Street and Boris Johnson moved in. The new prime minister quickly asserted his resolve to abandon Europe on October 30 unless Europe relented to his demands.

Where does the UK go from here? The American president encouraged Brexit strongly right from the start even mentioning, while May was still in charge, that Boris Johnson would be a good prime minister. Does that imply that sweet trade deals will be easily achieved between the two countries if Brexit occurs? Reflecting the US’s prevailing trade practices, that is uncertain.  

Britain has an uphill task in its international commercial affairs and domestic economic policy implementation. Domestically, Britain’s post-War framework was founded on the 1949 Atlee Plan whose objective was to improve income distribution through government intervention in health, transport, education and housing. By 1980, it was the object of critique by economists such as Julian Legrand of the LSE for insufficient achievement. By 2017-18, the situation deteriorated further. These sectors are now crying for urgent attention.

They include the National Health Service where waiting months for a GP appointment is not unknown. Emergency corridors in hospitals are packed. Trains are frequently in disrepair. Education standards have languished or worsened. Public housing has been sold to private hands while private sector developers face stern governmental requirements to provide subsidised housing, resulting in sky-high private housing prices for the unsubsidised sub-sector, reflecting the inevitable transfer of burden from the subsidised to the unsubsidised.

In the end, will Brexit be worth it? I have written on the history, psychology and economic implications of Brexit (columns of August 23, 2016; September 6, 2016; and September 18, 2018). The history began with Elizabeth I whose small navy defeated the colossal Spanish Armada, breathing self-worth into the British. Despite continuing net immigration from Europe over the centuries, including in its royal family, Britain remained an island with a strong sense of identity. Since its joining Europe, the psychology and economics were driven by unbending Eurocrats in Britain’s perception until it lost patience with Europe. It voted to leave, even though on a narrow margin, come what may.

The opportunity cost can be high. Internationally, the UK’s free trade with Europe will cease. Britain will have to initiate long and arduous trade negotiations across the globe. It will have to use dexterity in selling its high technology at the best prices. It will have to raise itself from the bottom up to revive manufacturing and sell its products competitively while raising its youth out of subsidies and into productive employment. A tough journey awaits.

One lacuna remains, however. Prior to May’s departure, a million-strong march against Brexit in London was ignored even as the march towards Brexit gathered speed. That is the only blip on democracy that did raise an eyebrow.