Brexit and the Limits of Democracy

It did not occur to me who bad the situation was on the ground was about anti-globalization and anti-immigration sentiments. The Brexit had showed that people are angry about having too many foreigners in the country- the strange faces that are taking the jobs away from the poorer and less-educated classes of the country.

Brexit have demonstrated the short-comings of democracy. There have been reports that London want to establish it's own state because it voted mostly for the "Remain" camp and hence differ greatly from the rest of England. Therefore it want's to create a new state just because of one singular issue.

There are even reports that the young people want to break away from their older electorate because the latter are the ones that are holding the younger citizens back in their search for greater social and work mobility. Democracy can cause fissures in society and fragmentation in society, nationhood and politics can occur as different interests group articulate their needs.

Democracy can caused divisive-ness in society and politics. The "Remain" and "Exit camp" split down the middle as leaders fight desperately for their agenda- personal attacks, negative campaigning and vitriolic jibes made at either camp. It made people wary of each other.

Lastly, Brexit also reared it's ugly head when it clearly showed racism won the referendum. Ignorant electorate voted on leaving on the basis of the negative campaigning led by the "Exit" camp on anti-immigration policies- similar to those allegations made by Donald Trump on Mexicans. Anti-immigration is in effect racism or national discrimination as governments tries to limit people of other countries from entering the country. Only citizens can enjoy the full rights of a country but let us not forget that many immigrants also do the jobs that many locals do not wish to do. We should not forget their contributions as well.

It is so painfully obvious to many the limits of western style electoral democracy. The camp that should not won, won.

In a one party system like in China, such a referendum would not have occur in the first place hence there would be no argument about even the benefits and cost of an action. The policies are firstly decided by a political elite and argument would be internal rather than aired for the public to see.

I was reading a book by Daniel Bell called "The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy." The writer is a sino-phile and is a big China fan. It is painfully obvious that he writes only positively about China and it's political system. He writes that the political elite is chosen by various methods from the examination and assessment by it's peers. Hence the political elite represents not just the cream of the crop of the country but also held in high regard by it's own people and therefore would represents the will of the people. In fact, these people are chosen based on political merit- as the book suggests.

It also suggests to a lesser degree- in authoritarian fashion- Singapore has risen through the economic ranks by muzzling press that is critical of it's policies hence the ruling party has been able to maintain a hegemony over the nation-state. This is in spite of it holding regular periodic elections over it's relatively short history.

Does this autocratic and authoritarian style of politics presents a new hope for the fragmented and divisive politics that the Western-style of democracy presents.

I do not think so.

In my opinion, the electoral democracy continues to present the best way to create a polity with long-lasting institutions.

The autocratic and authoritarian political system only presents a step back in empowering the humankind in determining their political fate and destiny and therefore their own lives.

To take the choice away from the people would be to undermine their values as humans and as citizens of the world.

The electorate remains a work-in-progress. The goal is not to disenfranchised the people but to educate, enlighten the people in choosing and striving towards common good and value.