عدو بريطانيا الداخلي

May 9, 2016 Harold James

برينستون - تواجه الديمقراطية تحديات خطيرة في كل مكان. وتشهد الولايات المتحدة حملة انتخابات تمهيدية رئاسية تعتبر الأكثر غرابة حتى الآن، كما يهدد الشعبويين الدخلاء بالاٍطاحة بآليات ومؤسسات الأحزاب التقليدية. وتشل الأزمة الدستورية حركة البرازيل. ويعاني الأوروبيون من قلق سيقود إلى عجز ديمقراطي في الاتحاد الأوروبي. وفي المملكة المتحدة، تؤجج رؤية السيادة الوطنية المتجددة الحملة لترك الاتحاد الأوروبي.

لكن الجهود لاستعادة "سلطة الشعب" يمكن أن تنتهي بسهولة بزرع العَدَاوَة بَيْنَ الناس وَبتحرِيض بَعْضهم عَلَى بَعضٍ. ويٌعد الاٍستفتاء القادم حول عضوية بريطانيا في الاتحاد الأوروبي مثالا على ذلك.

ويشكك المنظرون التقليديون للديمقراطية التمثيلية بشدة في الديمقراطية المباشرة. فالاستفتاءات، على وجه الخصوص، يمكن أن تحمل مخاطر جسيمة. كما ستٌختزل أي قضية معقدة في اختيار ثنائي، ويصبح هذا الخيار وجوديا ومصدرا محتملا لانقسامات عميقة على المدى الطويل. وهذا هو بالضبط ما يحدث في المملكة المتحدة اليوم.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

Harold James

Writing for PS since 2001
159 Commentaries

Harold James is Professor of History and International Affairs at Princeton University and a senior fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation. A specialist on German economic history and on globalization, he is a co-author of the new book The Euro and The Battle of Ideas, and the author of The Creation and Destruction of Value: The Globalization Cycle, Krupp: A History of the Legendary German Firm, and Making the European Monetary Union.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 8 in all 8 Comments on this article

lakshma reddy May 15, 2016

The issues remain un resolved as long as an effective cure is found. The depth of the EU issue is so deep that now the cure being suggested by both sides of the issue has become outmoded due to great supervening circustance of deeper globalisation by technology revolutions. Mr James is missing that core point in his analysis and arguments and citing not so relevant historical precedents including Hitler Germany.

Nationalism can be submerged only by higher level of political ideas and institutions that is consistent to control and manage the global economic events and processes.does the EU is capable of control and manage the global events in right direction and if not what are the costs of surrender of national freedoms and sovereignty that will off set the insecurity to its interests and liberties in cases of economic and global political crisis situations is the moot point.the crisis created by one refugees crisis as well as Greece and other nations financial crisis did not give the security it needed.
What is right and wrong with EU?
It is an loose economic union without political union like USA.and for historical and other reasons no country is for such political union and it is not feasible.without political union as mere economic and financial union through ECB like likely to produce more disorder and inequalities in long run than what is thought.

But Britain has a good and substantial market without any inimical trade tariffs for its advantage in EU which otherwise may be lost.
Therfore now it's a question of conflict between freedom and security and arguments rally around that.

My view is the EU has not that security to offset the freedoms it surrender to EU by UK and EU in its structure is is defective not guaranteeing freedom with security.

I prefer global political union with sovereign UN to which nationalism to subordinate to federal democratic Sovereign UN and no other political structure less than than that is consistent with present era of globalisation and to control and manage it in global interests which necessarily include national interests and that only provide the trade off equal to surrender of national sovereignty and freedoms.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Hiroshi Nagatsuma May 11, 2016

To conduct Referendum is up to UK people. None of business to people of other countries. UK was right not to have changed their currency to Euro. BTW; Professor Feldstein predicted EU will fail and in Foreign Affair or other places repeatedly wrote EU experiment totally failed. He was right and is right. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/2011-12-13/failure-euro
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen May 10, 2016

Harold James is right about the fatal mistake that David Cameron has made by holding a referendum on Britain's EU membership. Its "enemy within" is not Brussels, but the fear of the Brexit supporters. Cameron does not personally want Britain to leave the EU, but he knows that some form of popular consent is needed for future governments to settle the matter. While this referendum will enhance democracy by letting Britons have their say, critics argue that it is "bad democracy," and could go terribly wrong.
The author says, "traditional theorists of representative democracy are deeply skeptical of direct democracy. Referenda, in particular, can carry serious risks." In 2005 the EU Constitution referendum in France and the Netherlands shows that voters rarely focused on the issue at hand. Instead they vented their anger on incumbent governments, regardless of campaigns.
So why are referenda held? At a time when public trust in politics is low, "the mechanisms of direct democracy" could help restore faith in a country's leadership or political system. In quasi-democracies, autocrats use referenda to enhance their legitimacy of power. It is true that by holding a referendum on its EU membership, Britain has created a "fundamental conflict," that would lead to an "irreconcilably divided and increasingly stalemated society."
A "Yes" or "No" vote is an "all-or-nothing situation," with a "complexed issue /being/ boiled down to a binary choice.... which becomes existential." Britons now see the referendum as a "distinction between friend and enemy" - between the perceived regain of their sovereignty and moving closer to the EU. The vote will "resolve nothing", and the problem - deep long-term division - "doesn't end there."
If Britons decide to stay, their deep distrust for the EU will not disappear. The debate on the EU is too ingrained in British discourse and it will take years for the Britain-EU relationship to normalise. There is no guarantee that the EU will revise Britain's term of membership. If they leave, it will take "even longer" to repair the damage, not to mention the renegotiation of "the details of Britain’s relationship with Europe."
The author is right about Britain having "undermined its capacity to address the challenges it faces in a manner that promotes stability." Despite optimism from the exit-camp, a Sword of Damocles is hanging over Britain's and Europe' head. On the other hand, even if many Britons are nationalists, and they object to a closer union, it may be wrong to dismiss their doubt about the European drive toward greater unity. Many Europeans now resent the expanding powers of the EU, which is seen by many as authoritarian, despite having the best intentions. British resistance to the European project may serve as a wake-up call and a necessary corrective to its gargantuan bureaucracy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee May 10, 2016

The UK's parliamentary system specifically elected their PM on the basis of his promise to have such a referendum. The referendum itself is a product of representative democracy.

"As a complex issue is boiled down to a binary choice..."

Making a major purchase, or a lifelong commitment of any kind, is complex. Yet the even the deliberations of the most wise and deeply learned must end in a binary choice.

The need to make a binary choice is true of both representative democracy and direct democracy. Why confuse the issue?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst May 9, 2016

Duisenchantment spreads

Ipsos mori report -

It found that the following percentage of people want to have their own EU-exit referendum regardless of whether Brits vote for a Brexit on June 23:

French — 55%

Italian — 58%

Other key points from the report shows that:

48% of Italians want to leave the EU.
41% of the French want to leave the EU.
34% of Germans want to leave the EU.
Polish are the most against leaving the EU — only 22% want to exit the bloc.
“The Italians in particular hope to have their own opportunity to go to the polls on their EU membership — which lends a sense that even if the vote does stick with the status quo in June, it will not be the end of the EU’s woes,” Bobby Duffy, managing director of social research as Ipsos Mori
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Godfree Roberts May 9, 2016

'Democracy everywhere is facing serious challenges.'
No kidding? It never really got started in the USA, which, to this day, remains a republic in which the wishes of the majority are always ignored.
In addition to the testimony of most Americans, President Carter attested to this several times and researchers at Princeton proved it pretty conclusively.
Jimmy Carter: U.S. Is an 'Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/videos/jimmy-carter-u-s-is-an-oligarchy-with-unlimited-political-bribery-20150731
Jimmy Carter: US “has no functioning democracy” - Salon.com July 28. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/jimmy_carter_us_has_no_functioning_democracy_partner/
"Testing Theories of American Politics," by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page in Perspectives on Politics, The American Political Science Association September 2014.http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310
- P. Kamath May 9, 2016
  
  Would you care to mention the names of few 'ideal' democracies on this planet?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Odyssios Redux May 9, 2016

All of which is completely true. Which makes it even more bizarre that Camneron chose, for reasons purely of internal Conservative party comity, to put the country at hazard in this reckless way. One may also ask how many referenda it takes to make a firm decision. Should we look out for a third referendum, to correct the 'erroneous' outcome of this one - whichever outcome? The jailhouse-lawyer types have argued that the earlier referendum was about admission to the EU's precursor, not the present EU. But this subtle (and irrelevant) distinction has never been mentioned in actual public, general discussion I've heard. Cameron really is breath-takingly reckless in the most amusing ways. It's his, not Britain's, exit that is devoutly to be desired.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.