World leaders’ reactions to the Brexit shock included one that should not be ignored — and from an unexpected source: Russian President Vladimir Putin. Rather than exulting in the latest body blow to the EU, Putin castigated Britain’s leaders for “arrogance and a superficial approach … to issues that are vital to their country and to Europe as a whole.”
Coming from Putin, this criticism of direct democracy might be dismissed as an authoritarian conceit. However, there are states with impeccable democratic credentials that share his wariness, not least Germany, which has a constitutional prohibition on referenda, lest another demagogue should use them, as Adolf Hitler did, to extinguish democracy and the rule of law.
Brexit leader Boris Johnson, in his victory speech, offered a different view: The UK’s membership in the EU could be decided only by “putting it to the people.” So when are referenda appropriate in large modern democracies? The answer is that it depends on the question placed before voters.
We would do well to recall the two other referenda held in the UK in the past five years: over Scottish independence in 2014 and, much less memorably, over voting rules in 2011.
Voters in referenda often care little about the question being asked and instead treat their vote as an opportunity to register protest against the powers that be or discontent with some unrelated issue. The process is emotionally more satisfying than in a normal election, in which voters cannot see any one issue in isolation, and must weigh their dislike of the incumbent government against the risk of an even less palatable alternative.
This heuristic effect is compounded when a referendum question is perceived to be of little import. A classic example is the French referendum of 1969, when voters ignored the obscure constitutional changes put before them and focused instead on then-French president Charles de Gaulle’s prior announcement that he would resign if the referendum lost. The referendum lost, and De Gaulle resigned, as promised.
The victory for the “Leave” camp in the Brexit referendum seems like a similar protest. While the EU question was weightier than the French one about constitutional procedural matters, it still was not enough to discourage voters from pursuing other motives — above all, the desire to give the (pro-European) “establishment” a good symbolic whipping, seemingly at little to no cost. Sooner or later, voters will realize that the price of Brexit far outweighs any satisfaction derived from symbolic gestures. Many will reckon that such momentous changes should never be left solely to the whim of the electorate.
The Scottish independence referendum — which dealt with similar matters of identity and statehood — offers a different, and a more practical, lesson. The stakes could not have been higher, yet it was safe to “put it to the people,” because no voter could fail to understand the question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” Voting intentions hinged overwhelmingly on what voters thought about Scottish independence, as opposed to what they happened to be feeling about other issues at the time.
The lesson is clear: put questions to a popular vote only when there can be no misunderstanding about how much (or how little) is at stake. Doing so would minimize the risk of voters being swayed by tangential considerations (and, in the case of a low-stakes question, as in the 2011 referendum on electoral systems, the government should not be perceived to have a strong preference).
The Brexit referendum failed that test. Little wonder that we now see headlines like this one, from the Washington Post: “The British are frantically Googling what the EU is, hours after leaving it.” And the referendum had a more fundamental — and fatal — flaw: the choice between “Remain” and “Leave” was a false one. While the meaning of the “Remain” option was clear, “Leave” is no more than a direction of movement, with many possible destinations.
So flawed a question should never have been put to the voters. However, because it is politically impossible to undo the result, the British parliament should now invite voters to finish the job by conducting a sound referendum process — correcting the flaws in the Brexit referendum — to discover exactly what kind of Brexit the country prefers.
The next referendum would ask voters to approve or reject the non-EU option involving the least change — that is, joining Norway and Iceland in the European Economic Area (EEA). Such a referendum would be supported by pro-Europe voters and moderate Leavers, and opposed by more hardline Brexiteers. By ending the current uncertainty, a “yes” victory would limit the economic damage and help to reunify the country.
A “no” victory would indicate that voters are willing to pay the higher economic price to control immigration from the EU (which EEA members are not allowed to do). In that case, voters would be invited to accept or reject the next degree of removal from the EU — that is, a proposal to mandate the government to negotiate a free-trade agreement with the EU, similar to the one Canada has. If that were also rejected, the government would have no choice but to refashion the UK’s global trade from scratch within the WTO framework.
This process would focus voters’ attention on the merits of precise questions at each stage. The stakes and tradeoffs would be clear. Voting intentions might be influenced by what people thought of the leading politicians arguing on either side of the question, but the process would no longer be misleading or sensationalized. The exercise would offer a methodical and transparent path to a future for Britain that is soundly based, even if it is deeply suboptimal by the standards of those who wanted to stay put.
Christopher Granville is a former British diplomat and chief strategist for United Financial Group, a Russian investment bank.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath