Brexit – A Wake Up Call Against Elitism
KASAHARA Toshihiko / Former London Bureau Chief, Mainichi Shimbun
November 24, 2016
The world was astounded by the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union (Brexit) that became apparent in a national referendum held in June. In the eyes of the international community, this was a departure from political and economic rationality, tantamount to “jumping off a cliff.” Reflected in this view was the underlying assessment that to “remain” was correct and to “leave” a mistake. However, in a world where political decisions are dictated by the markets and value judgments are increasingly made from the perspective of short-term economic gain, I couldn’t help thinking there was perhaps a more profound dimension to the political choice made by the British people.
In the national referendum, the “leave” votes exceeded the “remain” votes by nearly 4 points. The biggest factor behind this outcome was the immigrant issue. The EU espouses the principle of free movement, and as it expanded its scope to Eastern Europe in the early 2000s, the number of migrant workers entering the UK tripled from 1 million to 3 million in the eleven years up to 2015. Yet, the real reason behind the crisis lay not in the scope of the issue, but in the attitude adopted by the British government, which, while opening its doors to immigrants had never allowed them to feel welcome, and had neglected to lend its ear to the voice of its disgruntled citizens.
The British government had turned the other way as immigrants were exploited to provide low-paid labor, while failing to address the discontent of working class Britons who felt their jobs were being robbed, or the growing frustration voiced by its citizens over declining public services such as medical care and education. Neither did the government provide sufficient explanation about the economic and cultural merits of accepting immigrants, or the benefits of membership in the EU. The country’s politicians were grossly incompetent when it came to educating the public, which was an important role entrusted to them.
Thus the social foundations were laid for the rise of populist politics that exacerbated the phobia against immigrants and criticism towards the EU, which became merged with a groundswell of nationalism backed by a sense of pride in the history of the British Empire. Eventually, the national referendum became an opportunity for Britons to vent their discontent with the status quo.
The United Kingdom has historically been tolerant towards immigrants. Its identity has always been open to the world outside, so much so that when asked what constituted a British national, the answer was: “anyone who serves under the king.” That this same country has now embraced the “self-injurious” course of leaving the EU and is determined even to weather the economic consequences, sends a serious warning to the world. So, what lessons should we draw from Brexit?
What I would like to stress most is the fact that within the larger context of globalization, the elites and the masses have come to see the state of society and the world through different prisms. For this reason, repeated reminders from the “establishment” - including US President Barack Obama, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank - that Brexit would result in economic loss and a decline in international status for the UK, came to no avail.
If one were to view the outcome of the vote simply as a confrontation between the “rational elite” and the “emotional masses,” the confusion will be repeated around the world. One of the warning shots fired by the UK has alerted us to the need to squarely recognize the perception gap between the elites - who stand to benefit from the globalization of the economy, and ordinary citizens - who risk losing their jobs or earning less money due to international competition, and to address these issues.
One could also say that the UK’s decision to leave the EU signified a defeat for elitism. The EU is a transnational body in which elite bureaucrats in Brussels hold enormous authority and set policies and rules without having to go through elections. The project for building a united Europe had taken a major step in the direction of political union following the end of the Cold War amid an optimistic outlook for the future. In reality the process led only to the creation of a sprawling governing institution without nurturing a common identity for “EU citizens,” and could not have been more removed from public opinion.
With a solid tradition of parliamentary democracy, Britons feel strongly averse to the EU’s ballooning “democratic deficit.” This may be yet another factor that led the UK to leave the EU and take the first step towards restoring sovereignty.
If one were to draw a deliberate connection between the lessons of Brexit and Japan, the risk of elitism seems inherent in the “politics of numbers” pursued by the administration of Prime Minister Abe Shinzo. Banking on the strength of a parliamentary majority to steamroll the national security bill and promote nuclear power is a political style that kindles social division by eliminating dissent, and may cause damage to long-term stability.
Those on the side of the political and economic establishment should heed the lesson of Brexit as a wakeup call against elitism.
Toshihiko Kasahara is a former London Bureau Chief of the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper.
In the national referendum, the “leave” votes exceeded the “remain” votes by nearly 4 points. The biggest factor behind this outcome was the immigrant issue. The EU espouses the principle of free movement, and as it expanded its scope to Eastern Europe in the early 2000s, the number of migrant workers entering the UK tripled from 1 million to 3 million in the eleven years up to 2015. Yet, the real reason behind the crisis lay not in the scope of the issue, but in the attitude adopted by the British government, which, while opening its doors to immigrants had never allowed them to feel welcome, and had neglected to lend its ear to the voice of its disgruntled citizens.
The British government had turned the other way as immigrants were exploited to provide low-paid labor, while failing to address the discontent of working class Britons who felt their jobs were being robbed, or the growing frustration voiced by its citizens over declining public services such as medical care and education. Neither did the government provide sufficient explanation about the economic and cultural merits of accepting immigrants, or the benefits of membership in the EU. The country’s politicians were grossly incompetent when it came to educating the public, which was an important role entrusted to them.
Thus the social foundations were laid for the rise of populist politics that exacerbated the phobia against immigrants and criticism towards the EU, which became merged with a groundswell of nationalism backed by a sense of pride in the history of the British Empire. Eventually, the national referendum became an opportunity for Britons to vent their discontent with the status quo.
The United Kingdom has historically been tolerant towards immigrants. Its identity has always been open to the world outside, so much so that when asked what constituted a British national, the answer was: “anyone who serves under the king.” That this same country has now embraced the “self-injurious” course of leaving the EU and is determined even to weather the economic consequences, sends a serious warning to the world. So, what lessons should we draw from Brexit?
What I would like to stress most is the fact that within the larger context of globalization, the elites and the masses have come to see the state of society and the world through different prisms. For this reason, repeated reminders from the “establishment” - including US President Barack Obama, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank - that Brexit would result in economic loss and a decline in international status for the UK, came to no avail.
If one were to view the outcome of the vote simply as a confrontation between the “rational elite” and the “emotional masses,” the confusion will be repeated around the world. One of the warning shots fired by the UK has alerted us to the need to squarely recognize the perception gap between the elites - who stand to benefit from the globalization of the economy, and ordinary citizens - who risk losing their jobs or earning less money due to international competition, and to address these issues.
One could also say that the UK’s decision to leave the EU signified a defeat for elitism. The EU is a transnational body in which elite bureaucrats in Brussels hold enormous authority and set policies and rules without having to go through elections. The project for building a united Europe had taken a major step in the direction of political union following the end of the Cold War amid an optimistic outlook for the future. In reality the process led only to the creation of a sprawling governing institution without nurturing a common identity for “EU citizens,” and could not have been more removed from public opinion.
With a solid tradition of parliamentary democracy, Britons feel strongly averse to the EU’s ballooning “democratic deficit.” This may be yet another factor that led the UK to leave the EU and take the first step towards restoring sovereignty.
If one were to draw a deliberate connection between the lessons of Brexit and Japan, the risk of elitism seems inherent in the “politics of numbers” pursued by the administration of Prime Minister Abe Shinzo. Banking on the strength of a parliamentary majority to steamroll the national security bill and promote nuclear power is a political style that kindles social division by eliminating dissent, and may cause damage to long-term stability.
Those on the side of the political and economic establishment should heed the lesson of Brexit as a wakeup call against elitism.
Toshihiko Kasahara is a former London Bureau Chief of the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
英国のＥＵ離脱国民投票を読む
笠原敏彦 / 元毎日新聞ロンドン特派員
2016年 11月 24日
英国が６月の国民投票で欧州連合（ＥＵ）離脱を決めたことに世界は驚いた。国際社会の目には政治的、経済的合理性を無視した「崖から飛び降りる行為」に映ったようだ。残留＝正解、離脱＝誤り。こうした評価の表出であろう。しかし、筆者には、市場が政治を動かし、短期的な経済的利益の観点から価値判断がなされる傾向が強まる中で、英国民はより本質的な政治的選択をしたように思えてならない。
国民投票の結果は、離脱支持が残留支持を４％弱上回るものだった。離脱の結果が出た最大の要因は、移民問題である。「移動の自由」の原則を掲げるＥＵが2000年代に東欧へ拡大したことに伴い、英国への労働移民は2015年までの11年間で100万人から300万人へと３倍に増えた。しかし、危機を招いた問題の本質は、その規模ではなく、移民に門戸を開きながらも決して歓迎することはなく、国民の不満に耳を傾けてこなかった英政府の姿勢にある。
英政府は、移民の低賃金労働（搾取）を看過し、「仕事を奪われている」という労働者層の不満や、医療や教育など公共サービスの低下で不満を強める国民の声に真剣に向き合ってこなかった。また、移民を受け入れることの経済、文化的なメリットや、ＥＵ加盟国であることの恩恵も十分に説明してこなかった。政治家の重要な役割である「国民への教育」が大きく欠如していたのである。
こうして、移民排除やＥＵ批判を煽るポピュリスト政治が台頭する社会的土壌が生まれ、それが、大英帝国の歴史への誇りを背景にしたナショナリズムの盛り上がりと一体化。国民が現状への不満を国民投票にぶつけるという事態を招いたのである。
英国は元来、移民に寛容な国だ。英国民とは誰かを問うとき、「国王の下に集う人々」というほどにそのアイデンティティは外に開かれてきた。その英国が経済的な損失を覚悟の上でＥＵ離脱という「自傷行為」に走ったことは、世界への大きな警鐘である。英国のＥＵ離脱決定から何をくみ取るべきなのか。
筆者が最も強調したいのは、グローバリゼーションという大状況の下で、エリート層と庶民層では社会、世界の現状が異なる「プリズム」を通して見えているということだ。だから、オバマ米大統領や国際通貨基金（ＩＭＦ）、世銀といったエスタブリシュメント層がいくら離脱に伴う「経済的損失」や「国際的な地位の低下」を強調しても、功を奏さなかったのである。
投票結果を「理性的なエリート層」と「感情的な庶民層」の対立で捉えるだけなら、世界各地で混乱は繰り返されるだろう。英国が発した警告の一つは、経済のグローバル化による恩恵を受け得るエリート層と、国際競争により雇用喪失や賃金低下の脅威にさらされる庶民層のパーセプション・ギャップ（認識の違い）をしっかり把握し、諸問題に対処する必要があるということだ。
英国のＥＵ離脱決定は、「エリート主義の敗北」だとも言える。超国家組織であるＥＵでは、選挙の洗礼を経ていないブリュッセルのエリート官僚が巨大な権限を握って政策や規則を決めている。議会制民主主義を育んできた英国では、その自負もあり、「民主主義の赤字」が肥大化するＥＵへの嫌悪感は特に強いように見える。欧州統合プロジェクトは冷戦終結後、将来への楽観的なムードの中で政治統合へ大きく舵を切った。しかし、その実情は統治機構が巨大化するばかりで、肝心の「ＥＵ市民」というアイデンティティを生むことのない民意を置き去りにしたものだった。
ＥＵだけでなく、世界の政治、経済界のエスタブリシュメント層は、英国のＥＵ離脱決定をグローバル化で幅を利かせるエリート主義へのウェイクアップ・コールとして受け止めるべきである。
筆者は元毎日新聞ロンドン特派員
国民投票の結果は、離脱支持が残留支持を４％弱上回るものだった。離脱の結果が出た最大の要因は、移民問題である。「移動の自由」の原則を掲げるＥＵが2000年代に東欧へ拡大したことに伴い、英国への労働移民は2015年までの11年間で100万人から300万人へと３倍に増えた。しかし、危機を招いた問題の本質は、その規模ではなく、移民に門戸を開きながらも決して歓迎することはなく、国民の不満に耳を傾けてこなかった英政府の姿勢にある。
英政府は、移民の低賃金労働（搾取）を看過し、「仕事を奪われている」という労働者層の不満や、医療や教育など公共サービスの低下で不満を強める国民の声に真剣に向き合ってこなかった。また、移民を受け入れることの経済、文化的なメリットや、ＥＵ加盟国であることの恩恵も十分に説明してこなかった。政治家の重要な役割である「国民への教育」が大きく欠如していたのである。
こうして、移民排除やＥＵ批判を煽るポピュリスト政治が台頭する社会的土壌が生まれ、それが、大英帝国の歴史への誇りを背景にしたナショナリズムの盛り上がりと一体化。国民が現状への不満を国民投票にぶつけるという事態を招いたのである。
英国は元来、移民に寛容な国だ。英国民とは誰かを問うとき、「国王の下に集う人々」というほどにそのアイデンティティは外に開かれてきた。その英国が経済的な損失を覚悟の上でＥＵ離脱という「自傷行為」に走ったことは、世界への大きな警鐘である。英国のＥＵ離脱決定から何をくみ取るべきなのか。
筆者が最も強調したいのは、グローバリゼーションという大状況の下で、エリート層と庶民層では社会、世界の現状が異なる「プリズム」を通して見えているということだ。だから、オバマ米大統領や国際通貨基金（ＩＭＦ）、世銀といったエスタブリシュメント層がいくら離脱に伴う「経済的損失」や「国際的な地位の低下」を強調しても、功を奏さなかったのである。
投票結果を「理性的なエリート層」と「感情的な庶民層」の対立で捉えるだけなら、世界各地で混乱は繰り返されるだろう。英国が発した警告の一つは、経済のグローバル化による恩恵を受け得るエリート層と、国際競争により雇用喪失や賃金低下の脅威にさらされる庶民層のパーセプション・ギャップ（認識の違い）をしっかり把握し、諸問題に対処する必要があるということだ。
英国のＥＵ離脱決定は、「エリート主義の敗北」だとも言える。超国家組織であるＥＵでは、選挙の洗礼を経ていないブリュッセルのエリート官僚が巨大な権限を握って政策や規則を決めている。議会制民主主義を育んできた英国では、その自負もあり、「民主主義の赤字」が肥大化するＥＵへの嫌悪感は特に強いように見える。欧州統合プロジェクトは冷戦終結後、将来への楽観的なムードの中で政治統合へ大きく舵を切った。しかし、その実情は統治機構が巨大化するばかりで、肝心の「ＥＵ市民」というアイデンティティを生むことのない民意を置き去りにしたものだった。
ＥＵだけでなく、世界の政治、経済界のエスタブリシュメント層は、英国のＥＵ離脱決定をグローバル化で幅を利かせるエリート主義へのウェイクアップ・コールとして受け止めるべきである。
筆者は元毎日新聞ロンドン特派員
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟