THE electorates’ rejection, via the ballot, of the positions held by their leaders for maintaining and improving human relations, though of dissimilar background, have striking similarities and serve as teachable moments.In the instance of the United Kingdom (UK), it was seeking the support of the people in remaining in the European Union (EU). The issue of whether to remain or exit had in large part to do with reservations by sections of the society, including leading politicians, that the UK was losing its sovereignty as it were, and its citizens’ lives were being adversely impacted by a welcoming migration policy.
While then British Prime Minister David Cameron had supported the country remaining in the EU and having listened to the public’s outcry against it sought to have the matter resolved via the ballot, he probably felt secure that opinion polls kept showing the British were in favour of remaining. On Election Day (23rd June) it proved otherwise.
The vote found a divided UK, with Britain and Wales voting to leave, as Scotland and Ireland voted to remain. This divided position prompted Nicola Ferguson Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland to say that country would examine having a referendum to leave the UK, since the decision to exit did not have Scottish support. The resulting effect, though there exists some remorse by exit voters, saw the resignation of Cameron and the EU’s reaction in calling on Britain to proceed soonest under Article 50 of the Treaty to ensure its exit. The consequence of the action of some, in what evidently was influenced by some degree of ignorance of the implications of the vote and understanding of the issues that influenced their vote, time will tell the impact such will have on internal UK relations and its economy which enjoyed preferential treatment and access to commerce being in the union.
The fact that since the exit the pound sterling fell to its lowest since 1985 and market stocks plummeted not only signalled some measure of economic volatility in the British economy, but also uncertainty by investors as the future of the economy. Newly appointed Prime Minister Theresa May earlier this month said Britain has every intention of leaving the EU and will move ahead in accordance with established legal procedures.
On the other hand, in Colombia, President Juan Manuel Santos and Rodrigo Londoño aka “Timochenko,” leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) signing of a Peace Agreement on 26th September to move the country in a different direction and work together, was rejected by the electorate. As with Britain, opinion polls prior to the election showed significant support for the agreement. On October 2, those who voted non-support for what is widely considered a historic deal between rivals of 52 years argued that the government was giving away too much to rebel FARC who they felt did unforgivable things to the people and society. Conversely, those who support the pact wept that such a move, which had the support of the United Nations, presented the possibility of improving relations and moving the country forward, was rejected.
Unlike Britain that has taken a decision to respect the referendum, inasmuch as there was a petition to have a referendum on the referendum and the EU’s call on the country to proceed with the exit procedure, in Colombia Santos and Londoño even after the loss communicated their commitment to proceed with enacting the accord. According to Londoño, who lamented the defeat, the Agreement was already dispatched to Geneva. This demonstrated a conviction by the leaders that the people were supportive, or they were apparently blindsighted by predictions of the opinion polls. The scenarios give rise to the premium held in respecting the will of the people through the ballot, whether sufficient work was done prior to the referendum to provide needed information,and address fears and concerns. Only time will tell what impact any decision moving forward in the two instances will have on the people, but what is does communicate in the final analysis is the importance of not taking the people for granted.