UKIP have tried to stress that rather than a protest vote, they represent a heartfelt ideological ideal to be found amongst the British people. That is a difficult argument for a party that contemplates buying policies from right-wing thinktanks to successfully make (Boffey, 2013). But it is worth considering what idealistic voters would find represented by UKIP.
UKIP's most consistently pledged policies seem to promise the withdrawal of an island nation back to its small island, there to survive on trade deals with the world's rising empires. And on that island there will be a smaller state but a bigger army; less taxes on income, but also less on business; less revenue but more military spending that means less money for public works or public services. They are a limited government, anti-federal, national sovereignty movement (BBC, 2013).
It is the Thatcher-Regan legacy, libertarianism, tied to nationalism. But it is nothing new.
In the early days of the United States of America, debate raged as to the shape it should take. Jeffersonian democracy argued for small independent states, filled with private tenant farming individuals ruled only by very limited government; while Hamilton's federalism argued for states to cooperate with each other and a central federal government that might act on behalf of the people.
While serving as popular national propaganda, Jeffersonian democracy was unable to deliver the prosperity required by early Americans. It was a massively unequal system that allowed only a few landlords - those who already possessed massive wealth - to flourish, and most of those did so on the backs of others: in this case, on the work of slaves.
So Jefferson's way lost the debate and the United States embraced federalism. The individual States found it is easier to express their own independence through the solidarity of a community. In federalism they found an allied community with which they could protect their common interests, while drawing up safeguards for the right to govern themselves.
Yet even when this was all in place, the limited independence of the early States was only achieved by playing competing empires against one another - a luxury that other small states that broke free of the British Empire did not have, such as those of the Canadiens and Boers. Once independence had been established, America only secured it against the grasp of the British and French empires when they built an empire of their own.
Here and now, the twenty-first century doesn't seem a realistic place to start empire building.
Modern examples of the alternative - moderately sized independent states on the world stage - can be found amongst the Commonwealth countries, where the likes of Canada and Australia offer a guide to what Britain can expect as an independent nation in the twenty-first century.
In Canada, debate rages over the influence their large American neighbour has in Canadian domestic politics, particularly with regard to oil pipelines and foreign policy (Goldenberg, 2013). And in Australia, the struggle to find sources of capital investment has trade and relations with China dominating domestic policy (Garnaut & Kenny, 2013).
This is the reality of absolute independence in the twenty-first century. Juggling relations and treaties with China and the USA, with questions on matters of independence curtailed, marginalised and guided by the interests of these larger neighbouring empires. UKIP's nostalgia for Britain's past imperial influence threatens to sleepwalk citizens out of an alliance friendly to workers rights, human rights and multi-lateral cooperation and into a position of trying to eke out both foreign and domestic policies where gaps allow in fleeting treaties and the interest of surrounding empires. Unfettered national sovereignty is gift of uncertain value, bought at a high price, and, while it may be help national identity propaganda to flourish, history teaches us that individual prosperity will likely not.
==========
References:
==========
+ Daniel Boffey's 'Ukip in chaos over policy on the eve of key poll, emails reveal'; in The Guardian; 27 April 2013.
+ BBC's 'Local elections: What does UKIP stand for?'; 3 May 2013.
+ Suzanne Goldenberg's 'Keystone XL pipeline not good for Canada, opposition leader suggests'; in The Guardian; 13 March 2013.
+ John Garnaut & Mark Kenny's 'Gillard urges closer Asian ties to ease tensions'; in Sydney Morning Herald; 7 April 2013.
+ John Green's 'Crash Course US History':
'#8 The Constitution, the Articles, and Federalism';
'#9 Where US Politics Came From';
'#10 Thomas Jefferson & His Democracy'.
No comments:
Post a Comment