Brexit, French Fourth Republic, and Faith. What is the key to solving our predicament?

When politics start sounding like a TV game show, its never a good thing. What a time we live in. Deal or no-deal. Coup or no-coup. Yes, it's Brexit. What is the key to solving our predicament?

If you need a clear breakdown of Brexit from start to finish, the BBC gives a rather good description. What will happen to the Northern Ireland border? What will happen to UK citizens in the EU or vice versa? How will the customs system change? No one truly knows what the result of Brexit will be though there are certain things definitely on our Christmas wish list. Any commentary will be mere speculation. Yet the general consensus on both sides of the aisle is that Brexit will happen with the terms of the separation the true question. This Euroskeptism is driven by a whole slew of factors. Problems of identity, security, and insecurity. Often times observable discontent with economic or immigration are but symptoms, not the root. Policies targeting visible concerns are therefore necessary but insufficient. The real worries are usually those of identity, culture, and reason of being. What does it mean to be British? Has the meaning of being British changed? Can I preserve or assert what I think it means to be British? These questions are likewise applicable to any other nationality. These questions might also emphasize the fragility of national identity. It might shock one into the realization that your nation is not what you imagined it to be. It highlights the gap between where you are, and perhaps where others stand. Exposing the ideological gap within society is jarring and frightening. But it has the benefit of shining light on what needs changing. With the issue of Brexit, I might add that inefficiencies and inconsistencies within European bodies do little to promote confidence in the ability of large institutions to govern or direct sovereign nations. This stands independent of whether you believe it is a mistake for an Anglo-EU breakup as I do. The state of politics in the UK leads to a question of political stability and what democracy brings. Of course the issue of stability, or lack thereof, is also evident in other democracies like the US and Australia to name but two. In no circumstance that I can think of is a constant chopping and changing of an administration beneficial to people, politics, or policy. Sir Howard Davies (a giant in the financial sector, political arena, and academic world) likened the state of British politics to the French Fourth Republic. From 1946 to 1958, the French Republic saw 21 administrations enter and leave power. As you would imagine, despite not insignificant economic growth, the government found it hard to implement much meaningful policy. The downfall of the Fourth Republic, similar to the Third, was a dangerously polarized political system that stalled the ability of the government to respond to crises. Note that longevity, as the Third Republic survived for seventy years, does not necessitate a successful system (for more, see The Hollow Years: France in the 1930s by Eugen Weber). The same can be said about many modern democracies that survive but not necessarily thrive. On top of the polarization besetting the UK because of, but not limited to Brexit, more members of Theresa May's party have quit than I have fingers to count. This does not include those who resigned in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote. This raises several fundamental questions about democracy that it has not fully grappled with. First, can diversity in opinion exist in a civil manner within democracies? Second, can consistency in policy and utility exist in democracy? Third, is democracy the best way forward? In this blog post I will only answer the first. Future blog posts will cover the other two. 1. Can a diversity in opinion exist in a civil manner within democracies? A democracy operates on a foundation of differing opinions. In fact, democracy thrives off variety of ideas and the ability of people to choose from a buffet of proposals. To remove conflicting ideologies is to kill democracy just as much as installing an authoritarian would. The nature of living in a condition with diverse perspectives mean that there will be some that you detest, hate, reject. One has to grapple with this reality in a democracy. One must be ok with this in a democracy because, again, to remove contrary opinions is to kill democracy. The sober fact, however, is that democracies, even mature democracies seem to have no clue, or at least forgotten, how to coexist harmoniously in an environment with different beliefs and desires. For example, you are either a bigot if you reject unisex bathrooms and the advancement of other LGBTQ+ rights, or you are the devil incarnate if you are an activist for such rights. Similar narratives exist on a whole range of other issues from healthcare, defence, education etc. Positions are polarized. Politics, and life, becomes a zero-sum game. You either win, or you lose. And you do not want to lose. Political strategy, at least, or maybe especially in private become a question of how I can stick it to the other side. How many votes must and can I gather to win. The solution to our predicament, the preservation of democracy, is not to eliminate ideas we disagree with from society. Even if they are as farfetched as building a wall, even if we if we find them morally abhorrent. Eliminating ideas ignores the people behind the ideas. Flipping a poll, like a Brexit referendum that would probably reverse the "Leave" mandate, might be a short-term political win and a smart choice all around but does not alter the position held by almost half of voters (Leave won by 51.9% to 48.1% in 2016). The underlying issue remains. The difference in opinion has not been solved.

But racism, especially by a head of state, is unacceptable. So is gender discrimination of any kind and sexual abuse. Tariffs and trade wars are bad both in theory and practice. How then to react to contrary positions that you fundamentally disagree with? By jumping to a rejection and demonisation of an idea and/or person that contradicts your position, democracy is subdued. The voice of the people rendered moot. No. For democracy to survive, we must go deeper. Recognise why such ideas are held. By this, I do not merely mean an exploration of the context by which these policy positions are formed. We must delve into the ontological foundation of those different from you. Ontology can be describe as the study of being. It is a reflection of the nature of existence. Those who hold differing opinions from you probably are standing on different ontological ground. The very way they view the world differs from you and their beliefs built on a different set of assumptions. Our ontologies in turn affect what we count as knowledge, how we might accumulate knowledge, as well as the limit of knowledge possible, or our epistemology.

If eliminating opposing ideas is not a wise or sustainable solution, I propose that the way in which democracy can thrive is for its people to understand people. Go deep to understand first your ontology, and then that of others. It is the ontology that really defines a person's being which thus defines action. An attempt to change action without understanding the nature of an individual will never be successful. This is not pessimism, but an optimism that understanding is possible and can be enduring. In looking at opinions, differences are emphasized. In looking at the nature of being, there will still be differences, but I believe commonalities will also be found. Focusing on the symptom/policy/opinion is often motivated by frustration or a like self-centered desire. Exploring the nature of being requires and encourages patience and love. You might not agree with an individual's opinion any more than you did before an exploration of his or her ontology. An exploration of both will likely result in a degree of discomfort from cognitive dissonance or mere disagreement. But understanding the person provides a greater platform for peace, for compromise, and for progress. As a policy-maker, you have to first understand where an individual is at before crafting a solution that can benefit all. When we accept the person despite rejecting the idea, it gives a chance for true democracy and freedom to thrive.

My analysis leading to this point has been purely academic and secular. Yet my religious inclination runs parallel to my conclusions. In exploring solutions to populism and other political grievances of today, we can look at economics and rhetoric. We can tweak communication techniques or resource allocation. We need to understand our ontological position and that of others. But my faith magnifies my ability to explore questions of ontology. It gives me confidence in humanity. It gives me hope regarding the trajectory of society. I better understand power dynamics, or at least as it should be. As a politician, and as an Lieutenant in the police force before, one of the most influential passages of scripture is found in revelation given to a modern prophet of God: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained...only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon...and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy" (D&C 121:41-43). My faith further helps me to see the best in others however hard it might be. It helps me understand both the reason and reasoning of diverse opinions as well as those who hold them. I believe the study of true religion positively changes behaviour faster than the study of behaviour changes behaviour. I also believe in the need for a non-prejudiced religiosity. Whether you are religious or not, and I humbly submit to you that there is a God and you can come to know that, I hope for the faith that allows us to be able to see the best in others. Light, hope, and change must begin with us.