Brexit and direct democracy: the double referendum option

Now that a petition to hold a new referendum has surpassed the 3 million signatures I need to discuss this option which I left out in my previous post.

I left it out because it does not solve the basic problem of direct democracy.

While a simple majority (even by one vote) is reasonable for easily reversible decisions, like the election of a parliament for a legislative period of four or five years, it should not be enough for decade lasting decisions. Typically, constitutions and major international treaties should last for several decades and not be subject to frequent changes because of the huge costs in terms of economic and political stability. Therefore, a repeat referendum is not a solution to heal a divided electorate. Only the requirement of a qualified majority solves the problem, because it guarantees a minimum of stability by avoiding the consequences of frequent reversals of opinion.

This said, I do not believe that such qualified majority needs to be extreme. Two thirds or three quarters majorities are clearly anti-democratic. However, majorities of 10 to 15% are a reasonable compromise between the rule by majority and the need to protect the minorities.

Obviously, these rules should be constitutional.

The case of the UK is peculiar in this regard because it does not have a written constitution. So, can a sitting parliament, the House of Lords or a high court cancel (or make non-mandatory) last week’s referendum? I do not know enough about the British rules, but, given the risk of UK disintegration, they should at least require a new election to decide on the future relationship with Europe; even if that means asking the former EU partners for more patience.

Brexit and the danger of direct democracy

The Brexit vote provides a clear example of why direct democracy is a poor form of democracy. The reasons against direct voting are well know.Irreversible and long lasting decisions are taken in the spur of the moment without due regard for its consequences, based on lateral issues.

For instance, the Brexit debate was decided mostly on issues related to emigration which are a minor issue compared with the consequences of Britain leaving the EU.

If the worst comes to the worst, the voters may find out that they voted to break up the United Kingdom, an issue that was never envisaged by most of them.

So, if referendum and other forms of direct democracy are acceptable to decide local or sectional issues they are not suitable to decide complex issues with many ramifications.

In particular, regime change decisions such as independence, constitutional changes or decisions on important international treaties should not be subject to popular vote based on a simple majority. Think for instance in voting for independence. If they are voted on a simple majority vote we would end up with a country deciding one day for independence a the following wishing to reverse its decision based on a change of mind by a few voters.

If such decisions require a popular consult then they should be based on a qualified majority that will not disappear easily overnight(e.g. a 2/3 or 10% majority).

So David Cameron’s assertion in his defeat speech that “There are times when it is right to ask the people themselves – and that is what we have done”, is not a convincing excuse for his fatal mistake of calling referendum on Scotland independence and European Union membership.

In conclusion, direct democracy has its place in a representative democracy but can endanger democracy itself if not limited in scope and quorum.

True Democracy ≡ Representative Democracy

Los indignados (the indignant) sit-in by young people in central Madrid and other European capitals is not just one more “youth protest”. The true grievance expressed by many protesters is not simply an adulthood ritual.

Every generation of teens and youngsters needs to affirm their adulthood by contesting their parents. This is usually done by adopting different life styles, entertainments and clothing or by endorsing naive political views. This is a positive process promoting creativity and carried out mostly in peaceful ways (despite the occasional brawl by a few thrilled by violence).

However, the indignant complaints have more to do with failed job expectations and unemployment and what they see as the lack of hope. They feel betrayed by elected politicians who pay only lip service to their concerns. Traditionally left wing parties and anarchists capitalize on this discontent to recruit members and cause some havoc. Ironically this has been a key reason why many youngsters have kept away from such protesters.

Although on the background those parties still try to manipulate the protesters, in general, these have been led by genuine non-partisan leaders. So why are the protesters still embracing revolutionary utopia falsehoods and anti-capitalist propaganda?

Some in the Democracy Camp in Madrid’s Puerta del Sol demand a “Real Democracy Now through neighborhood assemblies”. This amounts to direct democracy, which throughout history has always failed to provide democracy and led to dictatorships. This idea of direct rule by the people is populism based on a false view of early forms of democracy in ancient Greece. Rule by the majority, subject to a constitutional limitation of power to protect minorities, is the true democracy. And that is representative democracy.

Still, youngsters are right in questioning why elected representatives fail to act on their concerns. They need a clear answer to: a) they do not care; b) there is nothing they can do about it; c) the problems are transitory and the labor market will recover soon; or d) that the measures they are taking will work but take some time.

First they need to dispel the first perception. Second they need to fight the main source of anxiety – uncertainty.

This means that classical liberal progressive politicians cannot entrust the young generation to some kind of anger therapy provided by left wing revolutionaries and hope that anxiety dies out soon. For a young person who has been unemployed for more than two years it is not enough to hear that the market will solve the problem some day.

They need hope, and need it now. So, whether politicians believe in demand or supply measures they need to demonstrate action now.

Such action must also include education on why representative democracy together with constitutional liberalism and market capitalism are not the cause but the solution to their problems. They are in fact the only solution that can give young people hope in the future.