In May 2015, David Cameron led his party to a major electoral victory as the Conservatives won 24 more seats in parliament, making it 331 seats and clinching the required majority. Cameron thus secured a second term in office as Prime Minister. In a strange twist of fate, just barely a year after – on June 23, 2016, David Cameron lost in a single issue election- whether Britain should remain in the EU or not. The same electorate that overwhelmingly endorsed him and his party a year earlier, rejected his judgement on the EU issue.

A popular mandate was defeated by a single issue. David Cameron had unduly staked his power and political career on the referendum, hence he had to honourably signal his intention to resign. What an irony of democracy.

Many remain puzzled as to why and how the leave camp could have won the referendum.  The EU in spite of all its challenges is a model in regional integration which other regions of the World are trying to emulate including Africa. How come can it begin to unravel with a major partner in the deal voting to seek a voluntary divorce? In an age of globalisation where national boundaries are receding, national sovereignty is shrinking and global inter-dependence is the order of the day, how can the British seek to disengage themselves from a regional partnership that has proved more prosperous and promising than any other, in the World? The puzzle continues!

The victory of the ‘leave’ campaign may have fed into both domestic and external sources. Pax-Briticana, that nostalgia and pride of an old empire rekindles the hope of a dominant global power that is ‘first amongst equals’. Many older generation who massively voted for the leave campaign may possibly have dreamt of a new Britain whose identity is not swallowed by the EU, but a nation that looms large in the global map. For them, the EU is probably too small or restrictive for a “Great Britain.”

Apart from the symbolic pride, many countries in Europe have seen the rise of ultra-right movements whose nationalist cliches seem to have been well adapted by the “leave” group. “Bring back our country”, “Britain first” etc. when these slogans feed into nationalist passion, they can be a powerful force of political and social mobilisation. They resonated very well and did the magic for the Brexit.

But a nationalist project may not necessarily promote the ideational goals and values of democracy. Instead of inclusion, participation, accommodation and respect for diversity, a nationalist project may fern exclusion, nativity, and bipolarity of “we” and “them”, “us” and “they”. The immigration issue constructed in a nationalist mould, was very present in the leave vote.  Yet, immigration has been the locomotive of progress of many Western societies in recent times.

Further, what became obvious from the Brexit victory is the distance of politicians to the people. Even in a developed democracy like the UK, how come that the leadership could not feel the pulse of the people? How come could such a mis-judgement take place? It was a political gamble gone wrong. Also, the referendum shows very clearly that there is information disconnect on the EU project with the people. Apart from the major cities, I doubt whether many people knew what the EU was all about. This is why after the exit vote, the social media has been flanged by “regrexits” who are now signing request for referendum re-rerun, as they claim they voted in ignorance.

The external dimension to Brexit is that globalization has produced uneven results all over the World including in the UK. The rich have become much richer, and the poor, poorer. As Oxfam documents in a recent report, “at the start of 2014, the richest 85 people on the planet owned as much as the poorest half of humanity.

Between March 2013 and March 2014, these 85 people grew $668m richer each day…Since the financial crisis, the rank of the world’s billionaires has more than doubled, swelling to 1,645 people”. Small country side businesses in the UK seem to have suffered, which the EU could not salvage. The anger of the fallouts of globalisation was externalised on the EU. The EU was a collateral damage of the backlash of globalisation.

There are conjectures as to what Africa stands to gain or lose from Brexit. The jury is still out on this. But what is obvious is that the UK outside the EU will have to pursue its economic interests with strategic vigour, uncanny ability and deft diplomatic manoeuvrings. Africa should not expect any ‘Greek gift’ from the UK. Bilateral trade agreements may be one of the channels of economic cooperation, of which there have been serious doubts on its economic value to Africa.

Liberal democracy may have been celebrated as the best of form of government but it does not always get it right at all times. Perhaps, this is a case where liberal democracy, of a tyranny of the majority, may not have got it right. But the dignity, calm and decency with which David Cameron has handled the entire issue so far, deserves our praise and acknowledgement.
• Prof. Adejumobi lives in Lusaka, Zambia and writes in his personal capacity.