Britons will pay the price for the folly of universal suffrage

The great thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment doubted the wisdom of universal suffrage. They did not believe that every adult should participate in choosing government. Jean Jacques Rousseau argued the case of the social contract between the rulers and the ruled. He thought that best expression of consent to be ruled was through the ballot. Yet only a few propertied men should participate, he said. Rousseau said all democracies should be modeled after the Constitution of the Switzerland of his time. And what did this constitution say? On elections, it excluded black people, slaves, women, the poor and mad people. Only sane, propertied, free male adults were allowed to vote. And the liberal Rousseau thought that this was perfect.

In the 21st century, the merits of this wisdom are in doubt. The exclusion of women and the attempt to create an oligarchy will particularly lead to many problems. Perhaps Rousseau’s coordinates are all faulty. However, the point is not lost. I have often wondered about the wisdom of placing voters’ cards in the hands of a crowd of ignoramuses. It just does not make sense. The United Kingdom (UK) has these past few days reminded us once again about the personification of disaster that is an empty-headed crowd boasting of its numerical superiority. The only certain thing about such a mob is numerical stupidity. Yet virtually everywhere in the world, majoritarian numerical stupidity has carried the day at some point.

Only hours after voting to quit the European Union (EU) last week, British citizens were reported to have gone into a panic. The world saw footage about people who had voted to leave the EU without the vaguest idea of the implications. When reality began sinking in, they thought there should be a repeat referendum, for them to reverse their voting. Such is the folly of universal suffrage. Your one vote is in no way superior to that of a zombie who waits to be told which way to vote. We have demonstrated in Africa that even university professors vote like ethnic zombies. The only thing that matters is their tribe and ethnic emotions that feed it. The naval officer at the end of Englishman William Golding’s novel Lord of the Flies upbraids the youthful savages in the story with the words, “I would have expected better from a bunch of British boys.” And I would have expected better from a bunch of British voters. Yet throughout the campaign dubbed Brexit, the champions of the exit never explained the full implications of the consequences. Nor did the champions of remaining bring home the implications of an exit. Prime Minister David Cameron seemed to have been a reluctant campaigner for remaining in the union.

There is no gainsaying the reality that the world has become a global village. Everywhere people are breaking down barriers and gelling into one. There is no place for xenophobia and ethnic jingoism. Yet everywhere you go, you still run into ethnic jingoists, parroting the superiority of their tribes – be they European tribes or African. The costs are enormous. Any time a people fence themselves in with jingoist walls, they outlaw themselves from the rest of the world. That is exactly what the UK has done.

The outlaw is just that, an outsider. Once this is your status, people who have been your friends suddenly handle you differently. Some become cold. Others are outright hostile. For you have redefined yourself. In any event, even if you don’t think so, they redefine you. All conversation about you is in the context of insiders versus outsiders. They solidify and consolidate against you. Such is the ugly reality that the UK must contend with, going forward.

It is not surprising that Boris Johnson, the flag bearer of Brexit, has chickened out of contention for Conservative Party’s leadership even as Cameron prepares to step down. Michael Heseltine, the man who fired the political shot that brought down Margaret Thatcher 26 years ago has described Boris as a coward, “a general who runs away from the battleground at the first sound of gunfire.”

Philip Johnston of The Telegraph has opined that Boris never believed the referendum would go the way it did. He only saw it an opportunity to position himself for Tory leadership in the days to come. But they say be careful what you ask for, it might just come to pass. It did and Boris has no idea what to do next. Those who followed him blindly have no idea what to do either. Whoever takes over from Cameron, the way ahead is going to be at once rocky and tempestuous. The UK may find it is not just about economics and political influence around the world.

It could even boil down to such cultural things as language. Why should Europe have English as one of its official languages when the owners have quit? While the EU language policy is that all the 24 languages within the union are legit, English and French have been the main languages, with English having an edge over French. It will be interesting to see how this pans out after Brexit. In other “rich man’s forums,” like the G7, this language will survive because of US membership. However the influence could diminish. Who wants to speak your language when you are no longer a member of the pack? For language is not a neutral entity. It is culturally and politically loaded with dominant influence.

Two other critical lessons obtain. First is that in a close contest, such as this was, half of the country is going to pay the price for what looks like the folly of another half. Such is the asinine nature of democracy. But more significant is Cameron’s stepping down. This is where the West beats us hands down. In Kenya, President Kibaki’s government lost the 2005 Constitutional Referendum. Kibaki did not step down. He instead fired the five ministers who had led the winning side. The rest is violent history.