Features
Identity figuring notably in re-fashioned Britain-EU ties
The parting of ways, though within limits, between Britain and the EU could be signalling a dream come true for staunchly patriotic opinion in the UK. Particularly among some members of the older generation of Britons, the sentiment that Britain is ‘unique’ in the Western world has persisted over the decades and this notion had a considerable amount to do with the majority of Britons choosing to end the UK’s EU membership in June 2016.
The final terms of this parting of ways is being currently sorted out by the EU and Britain but for the global South in particular the relevant identity issues ought to be of special interest. This is on account of identity proving a thorny and divisive issue in the politics of the majority of Southern states.
However, identity was not the sole question for most Britons in the historic Brexit developments which have taken the world by storm. The seeds of the Brexit crisis could be said to have been sown from the time Britain finally opted for EU membership in early 1973. From the very inception of the tie-up Britain had reason to have reservations over how membership of the EU would work out for it.
While the question of the perceived uniqueness of the British identity has dogged EU-UK ties over the decades, issues of a more mundane kind have proved no less important for Britain. There is the question of material prosperity, for instance. Those opinion groups in Britain which have been critical of the union with the EU raised the question of whether EU membership has delivered on the economic front for Britain. Think tanks and academic circles which have been researching the Brexit crunch and problems growing out of it, have, in fact, singled out issue areas, such as, the containment of crime and terror, control over immigration and the efficiency of public services, besides economic well being and other questions, as areas wherein EU membership has not satisfactorily delivered for Britain. These problem areas were grist to the mill of Euro-sceptic political organizations in the UK, such as, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) under Nigel Farage which campaigned effectively in favour of the ‘Leave EU vote’ over the years.
Of no less magnitude for Britain was the issue of national sovereignty. Eurosceptics and other critics saw Britain’s union with the EU as paving the way for Britain losing its capacity for self-determination and independent political decision-making to a marked degree. The UKIP expressed this dilution of sovereignty thus, in a witty twist to former US President Abraham Lincoln’s well known definition of democracy: ‘EU membership has increasingly seen, government of the EU, by the EU, for the EU.’ Other sections of similar opinion framed the problems surrounding sovereignty in the following terms:’The principle is that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK. That is, by 66 million UK citizens and not by 508 million EU residents.’
However, what ought to be doubly significant for the global South in this connection are identity-linked questions that have, of course, taken many countries of the South from ‘Nation-making to nation-breaking’. Enlightened opinion the world over should take the opportunity offered by the Brexit crunch to expose the unscientific nature of national identity. There is clearly no scientific basis to national identity on account of the numerous blood lines that course through a human.
A simple DNA test would reveal this fact. A Briton doing a DNA test would find that his ancestry is so wide and variegated as to include people not only of Anglo-Saxon origin but those of the Celtic regions as well. Besides, he should not be surprised to find Roman and Eastern European ‘blood’ in his veins. Wherein then resides ‘Englishness’? This is the Question.
However, these issues ought to cause considerable discomfiture for us in the South as well. Identity questions led to the break-up of the Indian subcontinent in the forties and they are continuing to rankle in many Asian and African countries; Sri Lanka, of course, proving no exception. Illustrious Sri Lankan Buddhist scholar and educationalist the Late Dr. E.W. Adikaram said long ago that racial purity is a figment of the imagination. It is a flimsy notion that lacks a factual basis, was his position.
These issues continue to be of the first importance. If those vocal Sri Lankan advocates of communalism, for example, take DNA tests, such persons would discover that they all derive mainly from South India. This is on account of the fact that those waves of migration in ancient times to Sri Lanka were mainly from the South Indian region. However, European blood links too cannot be discounted because Sri Lanka was peopled by European colonialists as well. As in the case of the British nationalist, the Sri Lankan nationalist needs to pose the question: ‘Wherein resides true Sri Lankanness?’
However, since Britain is reputed for a strong liberal-democratic political heritage, she is doubly obliged to probe the persistence of ‘British pride’ among some of her citizens. Britain’s democratic credentials are such that she is unlikely to suffer any disintegrative tendencies in the foreseeable future, but Britain would do well to remember that she is looked upon as an embodiment of core democratic principles and values. She would need to live-up to these standards.
Despite the emergence of nationalistic tendencies, it has been the aim of Britain to be a welcoming home for people from around the world. Her Race Relations Act is a model for every multi-ethnic country that professes to be democratic. Sri Lanka would do well to have a good look at it. The hope of democratic opinion the world over is likely to be that divisive tendencies from Brexit would not dilute Britain’s undoubted democratic credentials.