“If you want
to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together”. African proverb.
With
a small majority, British voters last week dramatically swerved their nation in
the direction of a vaguely-defined future. They created one of those turning
points that are visible only to those who stubbornly shut their eyes and
imagine an end of their own making. Voters that wanted their nation out of the
European Union(EU) were poorly prepared to appreciate the full impact of their
choice. Those who opposed it were almost smug in their confidence that it will
not happen. It is obvious that the tremors of that decision will be felt far
and wide for a long time. Initial casualties already include a resigning Prime
Minister (PM), a leader of the opposition who will almost certainly be pulled
down, massive turbulence in the ruling party, a disturbing disconnect between
leaders and citizens, damaging uncertainties regarding the mode and impact of
the disengagement process on the economy, labour movement and employment,
future relations with Europe and the world and a host of other issues that no
one even contemplated. Many voters who wanted out are experiencing a buyer's
remorse, that nagging regret that you did not exactly buy what you wanted or
needed. Those who voted to stay are involved in a bitter blame game, bracing
for a future that will do a lot more than change the number of EU members.
Only
in two or three years' time will matters relating to this decision be
clearer even to those who are knowledgeable. The manner Britain's exit from the
EU would have affected its relations with the rest of Europe would be settled
beyond speculation. The anger and indignation in Europe at this moment suggests
that this is a most unhappy parting that could involve a lot of throwing things
out of windows. It is conceivable that a relationship framework is created that
tolerates Britain as an ally of sorts, the type that is useful but not liked.
Britain itself could come to terms with the deep roots it shares with Europe,
and facilitate a fence-mending process that leaves it some space and influence
in European affairs. The EU would have come to terms with the need for
vigilance and reform in its operations. It may have had to discourage further
exits in a continent witnessing a resurgence of right-wing politics that
peddles sentiments around building national walls against foreigners and remote
governance. If it survives as a continental body, the EU would have accorded
sufficient respect for what just happened in Britain, notwithstanding the
tendency to treat the British historically as odd sorts. It would have defined its
place more clearly in the lives of citizens of member nations, beyond the
impression that it is important beyond question. It may have moved in a
direction that acknowledges that migration and security are major issues in a
world caught between erecting barriers for security, and lowering them for
economic prosperity. This would have placed strains on a body with pronounced
disagreements on responding to major crises in parts of the world where Europe
has major stakes, in addition to existing pressure to open the gates to poorer
cousins, and to a Turkey that could substantially alter the mix.
The
EU may survive a British exit better than a Britain outside Europe. Now the
flames for full Scottish and Irish independence will burn more intensely. The
voting pattern showed many deep cleavages in the UK. More Scots and Irish will
now move away from a union that adds a dose of recklessness to a relationship
that will not answer to anachronistic. Older Britons pulled back the carpet
from under the feet of its future, leaving an angry generation which knew only
of being in the EU. Reinventing the pride-in-the-island mentality in
generations that grew in a globalized environment and culture with emphasis on
individual choices will be difficult, and younger Britons may punish older
politicians who led the way into this uncertain and unfamiliar future. Managing
a British economy with lesser intimacy with Europe will take a lot of skills
and solid political stability, something that is not in the firmament.
Productive relations with NATO and the rest of the world will require a lot
more than flashing a resume as a former world power. Proud Britons will run
into other proud nationals all waving the flag, as nationalism threatens to
uproot frontiers of regionalism and globalization. Britain may find out that
its security may cost more for a middle power living in a world with rising and
contending centers of influence. Today’s security challenges require collective
responses, and will defy the bravado of any nation which believes patriotism is
still a potent fuel in international relations.
Across
the world, Brexit will re-ignite sentiments that question current
national and regional boundries and compositions. Many old and new campaigns
will draw inspiration from the British referendum, or find in it new sources of
strength to assert rights to self-determination. Those that will choose the
democratic path should be reminded that the vote settles major contentions, but
it rarely creates a concensus. Brexit is a good example of the limitations of
the democratic process: it gives people the right to choose, but throws up
other disputes around the choice. Re-drawing boundries or breaking up nations
is rarely without massive crises, some so massive, they question the reasoning
behind the rationale. Africa can teach the world about state creation and
peace. South Sudan, DRC, the Horn of Africa, Saharawi Republic, Biafra (and
neo-Biafra),Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi have millions of skeletons of ordinary
folks who had no idea why they died. Life in most of those countries has not
been better since they were sacrificed by politicians who wanted different
arrangements in which they will exercise power. Europe itself leads the world
in the record of human sacrifice to nationalism. A 40-year old citizen in the
Balkans and Eastern Europe will struggle today to name all the nations born of
numerous bloody conflicts that produced the many(and recycled) nations in the
region.
It
helps to recognize that people will always question the basis of their
relationship with others, and express desires to alter the terms of those
relationships. This is desire as old as political man, and neither time nor all
the force in the world has killed it. What those who seek changes have an
obligation to do is to create a genuine and popular desire among citizens
for change without impinging on the rights of others to choose their own
versions of relations with others. For us in Nigeria, the best case to be made
by those who believe in Biafra, or different federal arrangements is to work
through the political process and secure a peaceful, broad concensus that
Nigerians can go their own ways. The constitutional bits about an indivisible
nation was written, and can be re-written by Nigerians, but imposition of a break-up
agenda will not work. Just look at the quarrel following the Brexit vote. And
to think they created this conundrum democratically and peacefully!
No comments:
Post a Comment