3 minute read
Public Referendums are the worst way of making public decisions....or are they?
from Ink 2017
By Archie Phillips, Fifth Year
(This unseen, timed essay was written in one hour)
Socrates, the founder of Western philosophy and the figurehead of ethical thinking was, surprisingly enough, not the supporter of democracy that we would expect him to be. He was actually firmly against the notion of the general public deciding on matters, in the city which championed such civil rights.
He argued that, if you were electing the captain for a sea voyage, would you be more likely to listen to the sailors knowledgeable in sea-faring, who would be taking part in the trip, rather than pool the votes of a random selection of people living on the mainland.
The unbeknownst listener to this argument at once agreed that the sailors would be a better choice as they are in a better position to make the judgement. This sounds like a perfectly logical and reasonable answer – so why do we, in modern society, feel the need to make public decisions in accordance with the will of the people, when there are politicians, elected by the said people, who can use their knowledge and experience gained over their career to make the most informed decision possible?
A common refutal that the thinking of Socrates is that the so-called rabble on the mainland have the opportunity to educate themselves before casting their vote, therefore producing a voting pool not quite as ignorant as Socrates feared. However, in the wake of the EU referendum of 2016 the murky water surrounding fact and fiction could be the most dangerous threat to democracy yet. Each campaign had their own clear agenda, and the tit for-tat war of words between them led to the birth of various ‘facts’ that soon became axiomatic among the British population. For example, the Leave Campaign emblazoned on the side of their bus that £350 million was sent to Brussels every week. This was blatantly misleading and the notion that this money could be spent on the NHS were we not in the EU is laughable to anybody with access to a search engine. With the potential for so much ‘fake news’ (as Donald Trump would call it) circulating in the run-up to elections, can the public be relied upon to sift through piles of exaggerated statistics to uncover the required pieces of information that would allow them to truly make an informed decision? Some might say that the Brexit vote is evidence to the contrary. More state control of the media could be a possible remedy to this issue, as only verified facts could be released to the general public. But it is apparent that a state controlling what the citizens can and can’t view is not likely to hold referendums in the first place.
These points which I have put forward have clearly shown public referendums to be a poor way to make decisions. However, one could argue that politicians, although voted into power by the public, are not always prepared to represent the overall concerns of the people, and so public referendums are, and can only be, the best way to gather the opinion of the population. The government of Britain and its members are, at large, in place to exercise state power in accordance with the will of their citizens. Therefore, as we decided to leave the European Union as a nation, this has to be the best outcome for the UK. Without a public referendum, this information would be amiss, and parliament would be unknowingly defying the British public every day Article 50 is not triggered and actively goingagainst the wishes of those they represent. Who is anybody to decide what is best for the country when we havedo adamantly voiced our opinion? The era of post-truths may be a threat to its integrity, but any healthy democracyrequires public referendums as a way of making public decisions as ultimately, it will be the public facing the consequences, whether they be fruitful or quite the opposite.
