From The Old Comes The New? Transforming Our Political Landscape In The Face of Brexit.
The ongoing case of Brexit epitomises a new era of British politics: one of greater independence and national authority. Inevitably, this was always going to be a defining moment for the country; all future market changes, employment levels and immigration numbers would be traced back to this vote.
But does that make it transformational?
To ‘transform’ is “to change in form, appearance, or structure; metamorphose”, but Brexit did not bring about something new, only revived something that was old: the notion of an independent Britain.
The past decade has seen a return to the rising popularity of over-simplified ‘solutions’ to complex problems, also known as populism. We are not moving forwards but are re-entering an age of polarised, divisive politics. Key historical figures, such as Lenin and Hitler, galvanised mass popularity on the likes of simple slogans, including “peace, land and bread” and “bread and work”. Their politics sought scapegoats: for the Soviets, it was the bourgeoisie and for the Nazis, the Jews. Almost a century later, the Brexit campaign was won on Dominic Cummings’ tagline, “take back control”. The principle of simplicity that was so popular in the first half of the 20thCentury is preserved today: only the modern-day scapegoats are immigrants.
Failing to be bold and innovate, a nostalgic return to the past has, paradoxically, been painted as a way forward for society.
The danger with nostalgia is that it abstains from total accuracy. Vote-Leave invoked nationalistic visions of “a world where passports were blue, faces were white and the map was coloured imperial pink”, as asserted by the former Liberal Democrats leader, Vince Cable. This longs for a time when a strong sense of ‘Britishness’ existed: empire, leadership, authority and respect was demanded from the rest of the world. Our separation from this, today, is partly due to the success of globalisation; but thanks to the power of nostalgia, our present standing has been made to mark a loss of status, catalysing a crisis of citizenship that set the stage for Brexit.
Is it possible that if we were not experiencing such a crisis of identity, Brexit would never have come about and we could be continuing on the path to a real transformative society: one that does not seek to define the self in terms of other?
The discussion of such topics carry a fear for political correctness that stifles our exploration of them. Ironically, Brexit forced a confrontation of this discomfort and, perhaps, was transformational in starting a dialogue on immigration and nationalism. However, it is the delivery of these issues, dressed up with false facts and empty promises, which has tainted this opportunity.Without such a true understanding of topical issues, we, as a society, become ignorant and surrender ourselves to the not always reliable advice of our political leaders.
Our democracy, in this way, has evolved as more of a surrendering of individual power to the safe practice of ‘expert’ leaders. Populism capitalises on the disaffected voter who is angry and calling out to be heard. The irony, however, is that populist politicians, such as Johnson and Farage, harness this anger to champion their own policies that do not offer an actual solution beyond all the commotion. The £350 million a week that was promised for the NHS is an example of post-truth politics at its finest, relegating the details of policy as subordinate to the appeal of emotion.
Political rhetoric and its harnessing of the weapon of nostalgia have been key to exercising a power of manipulation,but it is perhaps a lack of our own political responsibility that enables its effect. What has been missing for so long in British politics is a strategy of integration: a policy that bridges divides and seeks to unite polarised opinion, not necessarily to the point of agreement, but to acceptance. A more compassionate political landscape does not mean one of total unity, but one of fair and equal acknowledgement.
One thing that Brexit has served to demonstrate is that we are a country of a multiplicity of views and opinions and, despite the heated debate it sparks, this is not necessarily a bad thing. The electorate has been not only at odds with its own government – itself fractured and divided – through an inaccessibility to valid information, but also with its own neighbouring communities, for a lack of empathy. Difference has historically been simplified as a negative; supposedly, we cannot get along with those who do not share the same belief system or agendas as our own. Difference is, in fact, far more complex and can be used productively; to stimulate the very cross-party communication needed for this country to enter a new, transformative phase, post-Brexit.
