No one has ever seen anything like it before in the UK. In fact, there are no precedents for it in the parliamentary record. The 27 EU leaders are totally exasperated, a sentiment which appears to be shared by a significant proportion of the British public. Six hundred and fifty elected representatives in the House of Commons simply cannot achieve an accord on how to proceed in relation to the Brexit issue. They have rejected the deal Prime Minister Theresa May negotiated with the EU on two separate occasions, the first time by the largest majority in the history of Parliament, and until the European heads of government granted an extension late on Thursday evening, Britain was due to crash out of the Union without an agreement in five days’ time.
Exasperation aside, many citizens have expressed concern about the disunity in the nation, and have asked how the divisions can be healed and compromise achieved. Well, this is a matter concerning which Guyanese have great experience, since they have been living with an ethnically-based political divide since before independence. The general recognition is that our dilemma cannot be remedied in the short term and probably even the medium term, although its virulence in the view of some could be mitigated by a reform of the Constitution.
Of course, in the case of the UK, there simply is no compromise on the fundamental question of leaving the EU or remaining a member of it; it is one thing or the other. Where there is room for compromise is on the matter of what kind of Brexit the electorate wants after the remain option has been excluded, as well as on framework issues such as whether in the circumstances of an impasse, there should be a second referendum or a general election. There are many who have decried the tone of the political debate, and the immoderate, tendentious language, bordering in some case on the extreme, which has raised tensions. It has left many MPs, who have been abused both online and outside Parliament, concerned for their own safety. Apart from anything else, they do not forget the case of Jo Cox, the remainer MP who was killed for her views in her constituency in 2016.
Guyanese have a great deal of experience of inflammatory language in relation to their politicians. The objective of the latter is to keep the constituency base solidly supportive by stoking the fires of prejudice against the other party or other group. As such, stereotyping and mythmaking are very much in evidence. Although he is not the only politician guilty in this regard, Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo stands out as sometimes both inciteful and offensive in his articulation. The very least which can be said about it is that he does not boast a linguistic repertoire which lends itself easily to compromise; but then as an ultimate goal, compromise is not what he is seeking.
While Mr Granger’s language, in contrast, is habitually presidential, from his actions it can be concluded that his intentions are no more disposed towards accommodation than are those of his opponents; in some circumstances, probably even less so. Perhaps it is the case that some personalities have a greater repertory of the skills necessary for negotiating compromises, in addition to being possessed of the requisite disposition and diplomatic facility. In the first instance, of course, they have, at an intellectual level, to see it as essential given the circumstances of the time.
If there are those among our modern leading politicians who have shown themselves defective in this regard, they are in good British company. At the top of the list is Prime Minister May herself, who is a study in intransigence, inflexibility and perversity, and whose refusal to adjust to what is happening in the House of Commons may yet lead the UK into a disastrous no-deal Brexit by default. A feature writer in the Financial Times said that up until recently, David Cameron would have gone down as the worst prime minister in British history, but that now Theresa May was challenging him for that spot.
If nothing else, the situation has caused the British – or some of them, at any rate – to ponder a few questions relating to democracy. The UK – and Guyana too we should remember – has indirect democracy; that is to say, electors vote for representatives (not delegates) to Parliament. The referendum was an atypical exercise in direct democracy, and Mrs May is now hanging on to the outcome of that vote as an expression of the will of the British people which she is determined to implement. It was the highest form of democracy in her view, and it would be to betray the people if a second referendum were to be held. She has been undeterred by all arguments to the contrary, including the one from Scottish Nationalist MP Ian Blackford, who drily remarked that while she was claiming that another people’s vote, as it is called, would negate democracy, she had no qualms about bringing her own agreement to the House of Commons twice for a vote, and after heavy defeats, still wanted to try again a third time.
One commentator suggested that the UK’s current impasse was partly the consequence of the constituency system, and that proportional representation would have been less likely to have produced the logjam that currently faces the country. As we well know, a PR system such as ours (although there are other variations) is less democratic than Britain’s constituency arrangements, since MPs are answerable to their parties, not to the voters.
Other commentators have said that Britain’s lack of a written Constitution was a disadvantage – this in reference to House Speaker John Bercow’s ruling that the Prime Minister could not bring back her agreement for yet another vote in the House, when the Commons had already voted on it and it had been rejected. He based his decision on a rule of 1604, which had everyone scampering to look it up, as well as see if there were other precedents which might apply. As we all know, however, a written Constitution as opposed to a British-style body of conventions and precedents, is no guarantee of adherence to the rules, and in our case, any number of interpretations (or often misinterpretations) of our framework document jostle for attention. President Granger in particular, has shown himself unaverse to misreading the Constitution, with unfortunate results.In the end, where democracy is concerned, there is no one-size-fits-all, contrary to what the Americans have assumed for so long. In a very general sense, it is a system for accommodating a variation in views, as a consequence of which, no matter what form it takes, it tends to be cumbersome, slow (or slower than autocracy) and often complicated. It is organic in nature, and must be rooted in the society where it is extant, and, in new polities in particular, must be given time to evolve. A radical overhaul of a Constitution in the abstract in a society like ours arguably may not be the best of wisdom, as opposed to a more cautious, piecemeal ongoing approach, dealing with the essentials first to see what works, and how the situation on the ground is changing.
As for the UK, it appears to be undergoing a realignment of political forces which has been triggered by Brexit − a compelling matter quite independent of modifications in the major parliamentary parties, which have lost some of their MPs to independent status. It has happened before, although it has never been accompanied by this amount of upheaval, which has come about partly because of the EU question, partly because both major parties are headed by two exceptionally inept leaders and partly perhaps, because of the times we live in and the conviction of the right wing in the Conservative Party.
Be that as it may, Britain’s two-party adversarial system does not lend itself easily to political readjustment, something which Guyanese can well understand given the historical rigidity of their own political situation. What the UK does demonstrate, however, is that no matter how secure and how well-established, every democracy needs periodic renewal so that it is responsive to the needs of its constituents.
