IN May 2019, when several million European citizens will go to the polls to elect the new European Parliament, the British will stay home for the first time in 40 years. Some are happy for that to happen, I believe there are reasons not to be.
Brexiteers argue that pulling out from the EU would empower the British as they will regain full political authority. In a world as globalised and intertwined as the one we live in, it is hard to prove that people are empowered by losing their right to vote.
We have all been socialised to the idea that the utmost important political right a human being could have is the right to vote, and in fact modern liberal democracies are different from earlier political regimes primarily because of their founding principle of “one man, one vote”.
Therefore, it is odd to consider a lost right to vote as an “empowering consequence” of Brexit. With Brexit, British citizens are denied the right to vote for a constituency they have contributed building for decades (and for which their grandfathers and grandmothers fought with huge personal sacrifice).
To deny someone the right to vote means to disenfranchise an individual – something that modern democracies allow happening only in very limited and specific circumstances.
Can we genuinely be happy about being disenfranchised? Europe won’t stop functioning because we are out of it. Instead, we won’t be able to have a voice about issues and policies that are impacting, reaching and penetrating our borders, and that means being disenfranchised.
But not to be able to vote in May 2019 has another implication.
The forthcoming vote for the European Parliament will be of fundamental importance to our life. It will be a confrontation between two different visions of society and life – one which is based on liberal democratic values, and the other that resembles an illiberal political regime. The Europe of hope, solidarity and democracy versus the Europe of fear, hate speech and closure.
In fact, the political entrepreneurs of fear – that is, those politicians gaining from investing in discourses that promote fear and resentment – are gaining consensus in European countries, and their electoral success may endanger the democratic fabric of European societies.
Such is the case in Hungary, Italy, Austria and Poland – with the potential spread of racism and autocratic populism too in “unsuspected” countries such as Sweden, where at the recent elections the far-right Sweden Democrats have gained 16 seats in the parliament, while the Social Democrats lost the same number and the centre-left bloc maintained a narrow lead.
The governments ruling in these countries have already proved how fragile our democratic systems are when attacked from within.
Viktor Orban, the Hungarian prime minister, has endangered fundamental democratic rights and principles of the rule of law such as, among others, the freedom of speech and association, the protection of national minorities, the independence of the judiciary and academic freedom.
To contrast these policies, on Wednesday, September 12, the European Parliament, for the first time since its creation, voted through a resolution recommending the Council of the European Union trigger article 7(1) of the EU fundamental law, which aims to sanction countries that are seriously breaching EU democratic fundamental values and principles.
Matteo Salvini, the Italian minister of interior and deputy prime minister, has a weakness for hate speech and uses his Twitter account as a weapon against migrants and the EU, the “devils” responsible for all of the country’s chronic problems.
Meanwhile, democracy in Poland has been threatened by various governmental decisions, leading the European Commission to denounce “a systemic threat to the rule of law” there.
It is no surprise that when looking for political role-models or political allies, some of these fear-leaders look towards Russia’s Putin.
The next European elections would be a crucial opportunity to say which type of society we want to live in, whether we take illiberal, non-democratic regimes as our models of political community or whether we prefer staying within the tradition of European democratic values and freedoms.
But British citizens won’t have that chance to say which society and democracy they would like to live in. Some may consider this not to be a concern for the UK. Even a cursory look into any history book should suggest a more prompt reaction.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here