How ironic that the place that is considered to be the home of democracy is struggling to digest the result of a referendum. Voices from inside and outside Britain claim that it has fallen into the hands of right wing fascists, and that leaving the European Union (EU) is directly opposed to standing for peace and prosperity. While the presence of demagogues such as Nigel Farage is troublesome, it would be foolish to trivialise the deeper issues in the EU, and overarching political system that have led to this seismic decision. Underneath the growing intolerance and heightened nationalism lie real socio-economic dynamics, which are characterized by not only the decision to “leave” but also the response to it. In the larger scheme of things, Brexit is simply one more — albeit more significant than others — event that is symptomatic of the failings of capitalism and the liberal order. As the voting map was flashed across TV screens, one thing was glaring: it was London against the rest of England. The economic model of de-industrialisation that came with joining the EU has evidently caused a sharp increase in inequality across the country, with the already elite and rich areas greatly benefitting from access to European markets, while the rest of the country suffers from unemployment, a crumbling social services network, a lack of social mobility and so on. The laissez faire narrative of free trade of goods and services, coupled with EU-imposed deregulation and privatisation, has failed to provide the utopia of European prosperity, wherein all of Europe was supposed to benefit as a collective identity. It is this failure and hopelessness of the current political and economic regime that has fermented the rise of right-wing populist leaders such as Farage. In his column in The Guardian, John Harris quoted a voter, “If you’ve got money you vote Remain, if you haven’t got money you vote Leave.” The European dream, the loss of which many are mourning, is in fact a luxury for only those who can afford it. Such circumstances have allowed far-right leaders to manipulate public sentiment and put migration at the forefront, especially in Europe, leading to a rise in intolerance and nationalism. The xenophobic tint that this vote has been seen through is symbolic of the vulnerability of the disenfranchised voters to vile right-wing propaganda that plays on feelings of heightened nationalism. From the glory days of the post-World War era, which led to the EU being created, not just Britain but Europe in general has fallen from its pedestal in the global arena, and failed to live up to its promises of prosperity and integration to its own people. This begs two questions. Firstly, what lessons can be learnt about the influence of economic prosperity on voting behaviours? If such a major decision in a highly developed country could be so heavily dominated by hyper-nationalist and anti-immigrant rhetoric, what does that mean for developing nations? The right to vote and elect governments is considered to be the silver bullet for states like Pakistan, but with an illiteracy rate of two thirds and more than one-third living in poverty, the scope for propaganda and populist rhetoric to manipulate voters is massive. Just take the examples of the rise of far-right leaders across Europe, the popularity of Trump and Modi’s victory in 2014. As Brexit has exemplified, the problem of the “uninformed [or vulnerable] voter” remains a stark reality, even in the most advanced democracies. Secondly, what does this mean for “the end of history,” as Fukayama had proclaimed? Wasn’t Europe supposed to lead the world into a new era of integration, devoid of the very nationalism that it had created a few centuries ago? Mark Leonard, who published Why Europe will run the 21st Century in 2005, now claims that he was so wrong about the EU because he did not predict the revolt against representative democracy. But what he, and others like him, really missed was that at some point towards the end of the 20th century, the promises of liberalism became merely a veil to guard the economic interests of the one percent. The EU has become an elitist entity that is far removed from the ground realities, serving in the self-interest of the ruling elite and corporations under the garb of a collective identity. Greece can testify to that. Whether through mass movements such as Occupy Wall Street or books such as Capital in the 21st Century, the warning bells have been ringing. Why then, despite these protests and plethora of research highlighting the lack of income redistribution, has nothing changed? A look at the response of the EU to the possibility of Grexit and now Brexit portrays the Kafkaesque state of the ruling elite. The EU is so deeply immersed in cumbersome bureaucracy that there is very little chance to make sense of, let alone reform, the way it works. Regardless of whether the UK actually leaves the EU or how it does so, the very existence of this dilemma showcases the dire need for reform. Unfortunately, however, odds are that the status quo will dig deeper to hold on, as it did after the 2008 Financial Crisis, leading to further antagonism. For developing nations, who have longed idolised western democracies, this may be a bitter pill to swallow. As Piketty said, “At the heart of every major political upheaval lies a fiscal revolution.” The writer is a student at the Georgetown University, and he can be reached on Twitter @mtaa324