In a world with so much political, economic, and social division,
it is easy to feel pessimistic about our future. The West, led by
Britain, France, and the United States, seems to be coming apart.
The idea of any political party winning 50% of the popular vote
in any election has become a relic from the past. But is the
situation as dire as it seems?
Britain in particular seems to be going through an identity crisis. Let’s start with the Scottish referendum. Scottish nationalists took 45% of the vote in the 2014 referendum. Not enough to assure Scottish secession from Britain but a good start. The referendum was followed by Brexit. Some 51% of participants voted to leave the European Union. Voting patterns in the Brexit vote showed divisions at every level of British society. Young versus old, college educated versus non- college educated, blue collar versus white collar, north versus south, and the great city of London versus the rest of the country. Wales and England voted to leave, Scotland and Northern Island voted to stay. Lastly, the recent British election saw the election of a hung parliament or what we in Canada call a minority government. Expect the Brits to be back at the polls within the next two years, especially if Prime Minister Theresa May fails to reach an agreement with Brussels for leaving the European Union.
The United States fairs no better. Trump won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. Of course many would argue it should not even have been close. In any case, if one looks at the political map one sees two countries: red states (Republican) and blue states (Democratic). The red states even possess a contiguous border: one could travel from red state to red state without ever stepping foot in a blue state. The situation resembles the sort of ethnic divisions one finds in the Balkans. Meanwhile gerrymandering has created a new kind of segregation: congressional seats that place like-minded voters in the same districts. In other words, safe seats everywhere, making it almost pointless to have elections. And of course, race is as usual, just beneath the surface. African Americans and Hispanics tend to vote Democratic; whites in contrast have stuck with Republicans, regardless of Trump. Race is thicker than common sense it seems.
Divisions also exist outside the Anglo Saxon world. No candidate in the recent French presidential election took anywhere near 50% of the popular vote in the first round, necessitating a run off between Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen. Macron won easily, but only because his opponent was worse than Trump. In Italy, a recent referendum on reforming that country’s constitution was rejected, forcing Prime Minister Matteo Renzi to resign. Expect a heated and divisive election between Renzi’s Democratic Party and Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement sometime in 2018. In the province of British Columbia where my wife and I live, voters recently elected a minority government likely to be led by the left leaning New Democratic Party and its smaller ally, the Green Party. No party took more than 43% of the popular vote. The vote came down to urban versus rural, a phenomenon which aptly describes voting patterns in Canada at both the provincial and federal levels.
Other divisions in our divided world include armed conflict between Sunnis and Shiites in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, and the Taliban threat to re-take large portions of Afghanistan. China meanwhile is seeking to take possession of the China Sea, much to the consternation of its smaller and vulnerable neighbours.
But as hinted in my introduction, the situation is not as dire as it seems. History presents us with numerous precedents which could serve to end conflict and division wherever they exist. Each situation is different but they all have one common denominator: the parties in dispute agreed to cooperate in finding a solution after years of division and conflict. The problems these great statesmen and participants faced make our problems look minor in contrast. Here are a few historical precedents.
Exhibit One: Lebanon’s Civil War. A small country in the Middle East with a population of around 6 million, a civil war between Shiites, Sunnis, Christians, and Druzes raged from 1975 till 1989 as each side sought to gain more political power. Well over 100,000 Lebanese were killed. An agreement known as the Taif Agreement was agreed to in 1989, effectively assuring each side adequate representation in the country’s political system. The conflict would subsequently end in 1990. No longer would Lebanon be ruled by its Christian minority, but neither would it resemble any of the Muslim majority states in the region. The system isn’t perfect but the carnage stopped. Smart people came together to end a dispute in a complex country with complex problems.
Exhibit Two: Good Friday Agreement. Signed in 1999, it ended decades of civil strife in Northern Island between Catholics and Protestants. Divisions between Catholics and Protestants may seem absurd and trifle to millennials, but it still seems like a minor miracle to many of us who have been following this conflict for decades. Leaders on both sides understood that the havoc and mayhem caused by violence and discrimination had to come to an end. Both communities thus sent negotiators willing to cooperate for a bigger cause: peace and prosperity over continued violence and lack of economic opportunity.
Exhibit Three: Apartheid in South Africa. In place from 1948 until its abolishment in 1991, apartheid institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination between whites and non-whites. Two key personalities helped terminate this evil: Nelson Mandela of the African National Congress and F.W de Klerk, president of the republic. The former spent decades in prison on an island with no hope of escape or release, while the latter lived a life of privilege by reason of his skin colour and birth. Yet both leaders were able to set aside biases and subsequently come to an agreement based on a new Constitution that effectively transferred political power to the black majority while providing real securities for the country’s racial minorities.
Exhibit Four: Ending the Cold War. A conflict pitting the world’s super powers (America versus the former Soviet Union) against one another for global domination, it began in 1945 with the termination of the Second World War and ended in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Helmut Kohl, all cold war warriors to the bone, were able to set aside personal biases and cooperate towards ending a conflict that might eventually have led to a nuclear conflict.
Exhibit Five: Camp David Accord. Another key example illustrating the benefits of cooperation is Anwar Sadat (Egypt’s president) and Menachem Begin (Israel’s Prime Minister) coming together to sign the Camp David Accords in 1978, effectively ending military conflict between these two regional powers. Such an agreement was unthinkable but it occurred because both sides felt cooperation rather than conflict and uncompromising dogma would benefit both nations.
What all five of these historical precedents prove is that leaders able to fight personal prejudices and biases rise to the top. They cooperate for the sake of something bigger than themselves.
In the end cooperation does not mean compromising one’s values or goals. Rather, it means a willingness to stop demonizing the other side, and a willingness to keep an open mind for the greater good. The notion of compromise has a negative connotation. But cooperation and compromise are not synonymous. In the end, accepting the notion that one is not 100% correct shows wisdom, strength of character, and a practical way for finding solutions to complex problems.
