THE electorate in three developed countries voted against what some consider their countries’ best interest. Analysts and political pundits will continue to examine the reasons for the electorate acting as they did and whether the signs were overlooked or taken for granted. In the meantime, it helps to make sense of what the world is presently facing or likely to face from the expressed will of the people.
In June, against polls prediction the United Kingdom (UK) electorate delivered a mixed verdict to exit the European Union (EU). Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to remain, while Wales and Britain voted to exit. Together this represented 52 % who wanted to exit and 48 % who wanted to remain.

Arguably several factors have influenced the exit vote. One has to do with lack of knowledge of the consequences of exiting and the benefits derived to the country and the people being in the Union. Other significant underlying factors for wanting to leave are opinions that the UK is losing its sovereignty to the EU, and the influx of migrants and refugees are posing threats  to maintaining things the way they were.
There has been outcry that the healthcare system is overburdened and quality care compromised as a consequence of immigrants. The presence of multilingual conversations in the public sphere and non-English cultures, and having to be accepting of these from the perspective of the natives are reflections that the society is losing its traditional English values and culture.

The point of this editorial is not to debunk or support such views but to recognise that they exist. And in that they exist and continue to inform how people vote cannot be ignored.
Nationalism speaks to patriotic feelings, principles and efforts, but nationalism can also lead to extremism and a sense of superiority. This definition is fluid across countries, people and cultures.  If for some nationalism constitutes retaining one’s culture in its original form, and immigrants have the responsibility to adapt to the values of the adopted country, it cannot be ignored.
The Middle East conflicts and spread of terrorism, even though some are home grown, have come to be associated with an ethnic group, place, or ideology. And where such perception is accepted as truism the indigenous community is inclined to isolate this suspect demographic.

In September, Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, party suffered two defeats at the polls in what was said to be the Germans rejection to her open migration policy, though she vowed to stay the course. This month the United States (U.S.) elected Donald Trump, president. And while the result defied the polls predictions, at the same time it cannot be ignored Trump’s hard-charging campaign rhetoric of America losing its ways and Americans getting a raw deal in global trade.
In promising to “make America great again,” Trump played heavily to the argument that immigrants are undercutting America’s values, as in the case of Mexicans and how they were presented, American jobs which are being shipped overseas, and he will move to create a system where Muslims will be monitored, in addition to rejecting Syrian refugees.

In the Mid-West, where companies have moved their businesses overseas, resulting in economic dislocation, Trump’s campaign promise to scrap U.S. trade deals resonated. It is also known that by 2050 the non-white races will comprise the majority, even though as a group the white race will remain the majority. And whereas some are accepting of it, others feel threatened.
On Monday, in a released video message via YouTube, Trump said he is committed, as priority, when he assumes office to quit the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which during the campaign he said was a potential disaster. In the same recording he committed that he will “direct the Department of Labour to investigate all abuses of visa programmes that undercut the American worker.”

Whether it is called nationalism or not, something is happening that has caused the UK, German and U.S. electorates to deliver victories to those who promote the view that these countries are losing their identities and preferred choice of living. Ignoring or ridiculing such thinking will not erase it, nor the choices made at the ballot. While there is no magic bullet to addressing it, a sensible proposal would be listening to the people and addressing their concerns.