Dr Ismail Lagardien: UK puts national pride first

There is probably no bigger story in the world today than the British decision to leave the European Union. This does not minimise the misery and suffering, sweeping poverty and inequality, natural blight and catastrophe, nor the blow-back of willful invasions, occupations and war against innocents around the world.

In terms of the structure of the global political economy – which facilitates global trade, capital flows, knowledge sharing, technology transfer, etc – the implications of Britain’s exit (Brexit) cannot be over-stated. It is a regressive move, it is dangerous for the emulative effect it may have, and it has placed very high premiums on crude nationalism and ethno-centrism (in the broadest sense).

These were among the main causes of World War 1 and 2.

The “leave” vote was regressive, in the sense that it harked back to the late 19th and early 20th century. During that period most Europeans, notably the British, believed in and wanted to protect what they considered to be the cultural supremacy and economic might of their countries.

During the late 1800s literature in England included foreboding tales of invasion and the arrival of marauding hordes on British shores. This fed into the nationalism that gave rise to World War 1 and 2.

This fear of “invasion” was, of course, one of the defining features of last week’s successful “leave” vote. The vote was an expression, of sorts, to keep Britain great, or to make it great again, in a not-so-subtle emulation of Donald Trump’s “make America great again” rhetoric and cant.

It is no surprise, therefore, that after the victory of the “leave vote” the biggest smile on the political face was the gloat of Nigel Farage, of the UK Independence Party, known for its xenophobia and crude nationalism.

The leave vote could also have profound negative emulative effects elsewhere. Disaffected communities around the world, emboldened by the British decision, may retreat deeper into their ethic, nationalist or religious identities, and petition for withdrawal from participation in transnational cooperation for the common good.

This could adversely affect trade, reverse agreements on common pool resources and undermine multilateral institutions.

What makes the British decision even more diabolical is that in many ways the world is significantly more integrated, at least technologically and in terms of political economic interdependence, than it was before World War 1. The drivers of this integration have been as political as they were economic and geo-strategic.

It is, perhaps, no coincidence that the countries that are among the most prosperous and stable – notably, Japan, France, Britain and Germany – focused extensively on rebuilding their political economies after World War 2. The key to their success was a commitment not to return to the nationalism that marked the turn of the 20th century and the inter-war period, the results of which left up to 100 million people dead.

The Economist, hardly a liberal journal, calculated that, on average, nearly 30 000 people were being killed every day between 1939 and 1945. The sheer horror of those deaths make it impossible to conceive of a world that is better, at the same time as it is ethno-centric.

South Africa’s own ambitions of improving intra-African trade, regional integration and greater Pan-Africanism should, then, ignore nationalist or ethno-centric tendencies and focus on matching the post-war success of the EU.

The stabilisation, growth and prosperity of Europe since 1945 is in no small measure because of its commitment to coordinated economic integration. Consider the following:

In 1945, very many Europeans heated their homes with coal, chilled their food with blocks of ice, and had little to no indoor plumbing. In general, 50 years later, Europe is unquestionably the most prosperous region in the world.

For most of the post-war period the buying power of the average European tripled and working hours fell by at least 30%. Most Europeans work less and earn more than they did in 1945, mainly because they committed themselves to trade, shared institutions, the increasingly free movement of people and gradual dissolution of borders. These are all aspirations that are held dearly by Pan-Africanists. We would be well advised to avoid the bad choices that have been made and emulate those that worked for the Europeans.

Imagine an African subcontinent devoid of petty nationalisms and ethnic pride and that is, 50 years from now, as prosperous as the EU – notwithstanding recent difficulties, and decades long flirtations with authoritarianism.

As for Brexit, well Britain, itself, will survive, because unlike companies, countries don’t go bankrupt and cease to exist. They simply lose moral authority.