The recent
referendum in Colombia highlighted once again the inherent danger in putting
single questions to an entire electorate.
What
should have been the final chapter in a long and bloody conflict has now heralded
a period of prolonged uncertainty and even, heaven forbid, a return to the
battlefield.
The deal
that was worked out between the Government and the rebels, the Marxist Armed Forces
of Columbia (FARC) was the best it could be. Of course it was a compromise,
what else could be expected after half a century of turmoil?
Politics
is, and always has been, to quote Otto von Bismarck “the art of the possible,
the attainable — the art of the next best”.
Politicians
and diplomats understand it, but it is a hard concept to convey to tens of
millions of people who have little or no understanding on how politics and
diplomacy work.
In the
case of Columbia, there was a great deal of emotion involved. Families had lost
members in the decades-long conflict; other had been internally displaced;
people had been kidnapped and simply disappeared. The scars ran deep.
What
information the Government provided was fragmented and scarcely reached beyond the
big cities and the elite who had easy access to television, radio and the
internet. Yet it was often the remote, rural areas that had borne the brunt of
the conflict.
This led
to a widespread feeling that the electorate was being ignored, that their opinions
did not matter, something that was emphasised by the hubris between the
conclusion of negotiations with FARC and the actual referendum.
Champagne
popped, there were military fly-overs, Heads of State witnessed the signing,
and acclaim came from the international community. The referendum was relegated
to a side issue, and the people punished the Government for taking them for
granted.
All that
was needed to give form to the simmering discontent with the negotiations was a
populist hero — and that came in the form of former President Alvaro Uribe who
is generally credited with turning the tide against FARC while he was in
office.
His claims
that the deal disrespected the victims and would hand the country to the rebels
were simplistic and hugely exaggerated, but the grain of truth they carried was
sufficient to mobilise a slim ‘no’ majority in the vote.
Here lies
the problem with referendums in general, just at the time they are becoming
increasingly popular with timid Governments that shrink at the very shadow of
unpopularity: Handing complicated issues with far-reaching implications over to
an entire electorate risks the raising of multiple grievances which have little
to do with the question at large.
I well
remember during the United Kingdom’s June referendum on European Union
membership hearing the single mother
with six children saying she was voting for Leave because she had not been
given public housing — an argument with her local council, but certainly not
with Brussels.
In
Australia the Government seems determined to put the issue of gay marriage to a
plebiscite rather than a Parliamentary vote. While polls have suggested that 70
per cent of the population agree with the question and a national vote will
surely pass, the campaign will provide a platform for a homophobic minority to
give vent to their hatreds, quite possibly resulting in an upsurge of abuse and
violence against everyone perceived to be ‘different’.
In a
democracy we have the opportunity to elect men and women to represent us and
govern in our name for a period — four in many countries, five in India and the
UK and just three in Australia — at the end of that time we have the chance to
re-elect them or throw them out. They stand and fall by what they have done in
the intervening period.
The only
referendum needed is that vote. To constantly run to the electorate on this or
that issue is an abrogation of responsibility and a failure of leadership.
Worse still it undermines the functioning of democracy and gives ammunition to
those who believe in more authoritarian or totalitarian philosophies of
government.
No comments:
Post a Comment