The Republic in reverse...

Even though I have been living in Phnom Penh for more than 20 years now, however I feel deeply affected by the decision just taken by the people of the United Kingdom. I respect its sovereignty but do not welcome the outcome. The saddest part is that close to 70% of the young (those under 30) voted to "remain". Moreover, polls show that there was a correlation with education on how the vote went. One most likely voted to "remain" if one had higher education. With that information I leave you with your thoughts on how to characterize the outcome.

Undoubtedly the EU is failing its own public relations case all across Europe. That misfortune lays heavily in its complexity, developed over time through a history of treaties, legislation and policies that were laid on citizens who did not feel politically connected with the decision-making process. I have no doubt that this legislations was the result of long hours, days, months and years of negotiations carried out by our representatives to the best of their abilities and with the highest sense of duty and patriotism. They knew best and we trusted them. As time went by, Britons' understanding of these decisions eroded as did their trust in their elected representatives. It brought them to the point of rejection. They rejected the EU.

One could argue that the course of events we just witnessed was inevitable. Without a unifying European political voice, the original ideals and aspirations for a United Europe have been slowly overtaken by revived nationalist sentiments that have shifted each country's political focus back into its own political arena... and the construction of the hoped-for unity through the EU was slowed.

The comfort of a long peace time has allowed us to take peace for granted and we started to look back at ourselves. We saw funds sent to the EU as expenses rather than investments for unity and long lasting peace. It is natural that when we spend we expect something in return and if we don't we cut back on spending. Unfortunately for the EU project, many countries, and in particular the UK, started to look at EU fundings from an exclusively spending-expenses point of view, shifting away from an "investment" perspective.

162 billion euros - that was the EU's annual budget in 2015. It seems high but represents only 1% of the total wealth produced by all the states within the EU that year. 46% of this budget is spent on supporting economic growth and employment. A large part is used to improve interconnectivity between transport networks, on energy, communication, and supporting research and scientific cooperation across the EU.

Germany, France and Italy are the primary contributors to this budget. The UK comes fourth with, for example, 11,4 billion euros in 2014. That same year, the UK received 6,4 billion euros back from the EU. Thus its net contribution was 5 million euros, or 0.23% of its 2014 GDP. Together with Germany and France, the UK contributed most to support other countries in the EU in the name of European solidarity, solidarity that benefited countries such as Poland, Hungry and Greece.

As a Frenchman I feel all the more disappointed that the UK is leaving the EU as for 32 years France has invested on behalf of the UK in order to build a United Europe, because our President at that time believed it was the right thing to do and that we could trust our neighbors. In 1984 Margaret Thatcher negotiated a rebate on their contribution to the EU with President Fran?ois Mitterand. During a summit in Fontainebleu, Mr Mitterand convinced others leaders of the EU to accept the deal and an agreement was reached. In that agreement, France committed to pay part of that rebate given to UK to the European Union so it would not miss out in its budget . Hence for the 32 years since, France has honored its commitment to pay part of the rebate granted to the UK, amounting last year to 1,6 billion euros. As far as the budget is concerned there is one piece of good news for my countrymen in this, and that is the saving on that rebate.

As we are still looking at the aftermath of "UK Decides", recent developments suggest that David Cameron may go down in history as the man who started the dismantlement of the United Kingdom with calls in both Scotland and Northern Ireland for referendums that, if favorable, will probably lead to a new, smaller Britain. Politically for him, this is becoming more than a disaster.

On a broader point of view, I am ashamed of how our politicians across Europe have evolved to behave nowadays and how irresponsible towards history they have become.

Now that the UK is leaving the EU, we can actually stop to look at what happened, and ponder on how politicians foolishly play with populist rhetoric to get elected. Believe me, I know what I am talking about. I closely followed the 2012 presidential election in France and the outcome four years later. Despite that, I was possibly living under a rock, because I never saw this result coming. I am amazed every morning when I look at CNN coverage of the American presidential campaign. It took on the allure of a very entertaining live show; so entertaining that it can make me laugh, and cry...

It's a crying shame and we are all in it. Actors, spectators media we are all responsible because we came to look for the worst in people. Instead of searching out the best in ourselves and those around us us we are looking the other way. The result is staggering. Instead of a debate of ideas we are witnessing a fight of characters. Who said Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People? How on earth did we get so small?

But back to the EU. Don't you think that to be a part, or not, of the European Union deserves a more in-depth debate than a campaign based on a simplistic "Remain vs Leave" vote, that barely scratches the surface of the issues? In the face of our current social context, overwhelmingly taken up by immigration issues, lots of question about our futures need answering. Looking back at what was said in the UK, didn't we witness such smallness?

In politics, you need to be popular to be elected. All too often, campaigning politicians forget that when you get to lead, you also need to be wise and smart; qualities that depressingly do not seem to chime with "popular" these days.

But here we were, on June 24th waking up with a very big headache. This is history in the making we are told, indeed, it is all over the news, non-stop. Now, my only hope is that great minds will analyze that big set-back and learn a great deal to move towards better days.

In contrast, living in Cambodia, a country re-building itself from the remains of long turmoil, I have come to appreciate even more European achievements since the end of the Second World War. Right here in the midst of Cambodian political frenzy and economic growth, I realize how blessed we Europeans were to have had been led by wise and visionary men and women who took on the challenge of rebuilding "Europe" after the war.

Globally, the pool of politicians with moral and intellectual integrity that we can choose among seems to get narrower. Ideas and Visions are missing everywhere. Everyday, we are served left-over rhetoric, as we are looking for a new kind of message. The presidential campaign in the US is symptomatic, even as we see the growing popularity of nationalistic ideas across Europe. All of this is really challenging my understandings of modern societies on many levels.

The past and present debates about Greece's economic health, the terrible ordeal related to the management of immigrants to the EU over the past two years, the inability of the EU to create the conditions for sustainable economic and social growth all contributed to the development across the region of feelings of frustration, isolation and anger. It is amazing how quickly citizens express their resentments toward their politicians as soon as they are given the opportunity to do so. And how fast those same politicians can regain their popularity, when he is out of power and says nothing. More than ever, the mistrust of governments across the EU is deep and extraordinary. Our world has changed into a cynical world. Something is obviously wrong.

Yesterday morning I read this in Time magazine: "[...] theoretically, [...] Prime Minister David Cameron could decide to put the results of the referendum to a parliamentary vote, rather than going straight to the E.U. to ask to leave. The UK Parliament is thought to be about three-quarters in favour of Remain so this would negate the result."

Time implies that the UK parliament, the elected body entrusted by its people, would vote a differently from the people it claims to represent. It also raises an important question of power which shakes the fundamentals of governing with a mandate to manage and handle the "res publica" in conformity with its power rooted in its "demos" "Kratos"

In this 21st century can a government act against the will of the people it represents?

Incredibly, the answer to this question is YES.

We all remember May 2005, when 55% of French voters gave the victory to the "No" campaign during a referendum to decide whether France should or should not ratify the proposed Constitution of the European Union. The result sent a shock wave all across the EU and the world. That decision abruptly brought the process of ratification to an end and should have ended the process.

Well, never mind that, following a period of reflection, the Treaty of Lisbon was created to replace the Constitutional Treaty. This treaty contained many of the changes that were originally placed in the Constitutional Treaty but were formulated as amendments to the existing treaties. Signed on 13 December 2007, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009. France ratified the treaty through a parliamentary process and the EU construction went forward. The EU and France reversed a decision made democratically via referendum. Did the French revolt; did they feel like they were robbed? Nope. Everything went very smoothly.

These tactics do not escape the minds of unscrupulous politicians who do not concur with a system that works within the rules of the republic. They oppose the direct measurement of the people's will through polls or referendums. They often claim that the rights of "we the people" are stolen by the system, so they advocate against this system blaming politicians, technocrats and alike for all of the suffering endured by the people. This stance is the backbone of any rhetoric brought forward by extremists and populists alike. They blame the system, they hold it responsible for these ordeals. And because of its straight-forward, simplistic nature these ideas are now making their way to a broader part of popular thought.

Here and there, now and then we hear arguments that encourage us to fight against a "System", the "Technocratic system". We are lead to believe that we are not in control and that the system is a machine designed to favor the strong and the powerful, the elite, the technocrats themselves. We are told that the system is corrupt, rigged.

This rhetoric has created a dangerous misconception about our society and its governance. Surely it leads the people to think that the system they are attacking is something estranged from the republic. Well It is not. The system is the republic. It is how it works, and we, the people, have made it more complex by adapting it to the evolution of our societies year after year.

In the face of this populist stance and their constant attacks, our leaders are compelled to call on the people to decide by means of referendum. We just witnessed what that leads to.

More over, politicians are addicted to this "popularity contest" held in the media by means of polls. When elected, they continue this addiction and use poll results to govern. They measure almost everything and in particular the popularity of the potential effect of new policies they have engineered in good faith for the good of we the people. If polls are not favorable, the policies are shelved and reforms are forgotten. As a result we have to put up with a situation that worsens instead of improves. It is clear that the priority for politicians is clearly to stay afloat in the popular whirlpool, this is what matters for them in their quests for power.
This has now created an immense paradox where the republic is walking upside down on its head. We are living in a world where, and I dare make an analogy, a doctor asks his patient if he agrees with the diagnosis he made and if he can administer the medicine to cure him or to save him. Or perhaps worse, the doctor asks his own patient to formulate his own diagnosis and prognosis or how best he could cure himself... I would not trust my doctor if he were so unsure, so weak. I would look elsewhere for new doctors because if there is one sure thing I know is that I am not a doctor therefore unqualified to find remedies.

My conclusion is that this misconception has now weakened our ideals of governance. People are misled into believing that they can all be doctors and that they have the capacity to intervene when and where their representatives should. As a result, the republic is falling because the mechanism has reversed. Instead of "we the people" empowering our elected leaders we are empowered by them. We need to put the head back in its place and shift to a new gear for the republic to work again. Everywhere, we need to find smart brilliant visionary and wise leaders that put the republic first. We need a fresh new start. (To be continued...)