Abstract
Welcome to our spring issue of World Affairs!
As I write this editorial, talks in the British Parliament over the terms of the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union (EU), or Brexit, are heating up considerably. The U.K. House of Commons rejected Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal by a record 432-202 votes in January 2019—the largest government defeat in Britain’s history. But time could run out for May to push for a workable consensus. Britain must legally leave the EU by March 29, 2019, and only agreement from the 28 countries of the EU can delay this deadline. May has been frantically assembling a modified, more moderate version of the defeated deal with the aim of getting it through the U.K. parliament in time. However, as of this writing, she is still refusing to rule out a ‘no-deal’ Brexit and remains committed to implementing the ‘leave’ decision of the 2016 U.K. referendum rather than conducting a second referendum (BBC News 2019)—which many commentators believe would, if held, now lead to a ‘remain’ decision (see, for example, Watts 2018; YouGov 2018).
Far from being a merely European affair, Brexit embodies political debates and conundrums that have a truly international reach. These include, but are not restricted to, the place of referenda in contemporary democracies, media effects on shaping public opinion, citizen responsibility for thinking through important democratic decisions and duties, availability of political information, confirmation bias and Internet use in democratic polities, media responsibility for unbiased and/or emotive political coverage of the issues, how to identify and regulate fake news, consensus seeking versus political polarization, isolationism in the face of globalization, regional integration versus national sovereignty, the effects of the ‘migration crisis’ and border security on campaign rhetoric, and the oversimplification of key sociopolitical issues. The list could, of course, go on. Future submissions to World Affairs journal on the relation of Brexit to these topics and their broader implications for countries in other regions are very much encouraged.
Our first article of 2019 takes up the point that some of the wider, international implications of Brexit are of great significance, both within and beyond the region. In “EU Policy Appraisals and Public Opinion: A Tale of Sophistication and Interdependence,” Pierre Philippe Balestrini demonstrates that EU citizens across the region—not just in Britain—are very concerned about the effects of economic and cultural globalization on their welfare. They are also not particularly enamored with the direction recent EU integration is taking. EU citizens, he shows, tend not to be satisfied with what they see as an excessive EU contribution to national policy making across a variety of socioeconomic policies. The connection with Trump’s populism and with American voters who have expressed disaffection with economic and cultural globalization will not be lost on readers. Balestrini warns that the sources of Euroskepticism in the EU, over policies including migration to the region and international trade competition with China, may suggest that Brexit may not, in the long run, be an isolated case despite Britain’s long-standing position as “the reluctant European.”
Continuing with current affairs in the EU, our next article focuses on “Configurations of Immigrant Integration Policies in Europe.” Francesco Pasetti’s in-depth study explores if shared configurations of immigrant integration policies—via labor, education, political participation, and citizenship policies—exist across the EU and where the national policy similarities and differences lie. He finds that distinct shared policy patterns are indeed evident and offers a new analytical standpoint for assessing integration policies in comparative terms. The theoretical implications reach much farther afield than Europe.
Benjamin T. Toll discusses some of the most important effects of an American electorate that appears, paradoxically, to want both polarization and moderation from their members of Congress. In “A Paradox in Polarization? Cross-Pressured Representatives and the Missing Incentive to Moderate,” Toll looks closely at congresspersons who serve a constituency that votes for the opposite party at the national level. He finds that while these cross-pressured representatives are more likely to moderate their votes—which one would expect to have positive results at the polls—they are less likely to be reelected. The result is “a paradox where those members of Congress who are less partisan than their peers, representing a district that seemingly values moderation, are less likely than partisan members to win reelection.” A major strength of the study is the assistance it gives in offering a deeper understanding of how and why polarization in U.S. politics is on the increase.
Our final article features Ko Mishima’s exploration of “The Presidentialization of Japan’s LDP Politics: Analyzing Its Causes, Limits, and Perils.” As in other parts of the world, rapid global transformations have meant that, traditional, consensus-based Japanese policy making is failing to deliver satisfactory results. It has led to the presidentialization of the premiership in a way unlike other countries following a Westminster political system. Mishima contends that the artificially boosted status of the Japanese prime minister “throws into sharp relief the stresses that more powerful top leadership figures can cause to larger political systems.” This risks undermining the vigor and stability of democracy. Given the recent U.S. government shutdown and its aftermath, the broader implications of Mishima’s arguments merit close examination.
This issue brings World Affairs readers timely and in-depth studies on Europe, the United States, and Japanese politics—all of which contain arguments that reach beyond these specific countries and regions. Taken together, they further the journal’s aim of serving as a platform to foster spirited political conversation, disseminating detailed political analysis, and offering useful perspectives for policy practitioners. As always, I encourage you to continue to submit your original research articles, response papers, commentaries, and letters to the editor at the email address below.