Its not for life

   

Subject: It's not for life.

The Erdogan Referendum on whether to consolidate the position and the powers of the Turkish President with those powers held by the Prime Minister has revealed what a divisive  system Referendum can be when the voting is close. 

Brexit had a similar close result and given the importance Referendum questions have on a country it seems a binary vote, "yes or no" always gives an incomplete answer. 

All voting system leave winners and losers and if in the round the outcome is divisive  usually there is hope for the losers that in time they can have their say and reverse it.

Referendum unfortunately seem to be a totally different political device since the outcome is deemed irreversible. Can an outcome, which is irreversible be judged by a single vote on the bases of a single question on the ballot paper.

Given that the question on the ballot paper matters to people and given that 51% vote 'yes' and 49% vote 'no' how can any sort of consensus be reached between winners and losers. 

Instead of winning the issue by repeated debate and compromise it provides a stark contrast and inevitable conflict within the society, a conflict which simmers with resentment, rather than coming to terms and acquiescing. These acute differences can, in volatile societies become the seed for civil war and even in our own mature society the result of the Brexit vote will not begin to be revealed until the end of the two year negotiation and the position we are in is revealed.

Little has happened since the vote other than we have learnt more about the negative implications of our voting to get out of the EU. This learning curve has taken place after the vote when common sense tells us, it should have taken place before. 

As the implications come out in a drip feed of debate, we become in a better position to make a valued decision and at least having evaluated the consequences, we can't cry when things go belly up.

Referendum then are a rough tool to gauge a populations wishes. It simply polarises people into camps which re-entrench a position, since regardless of any new facts, to protect the reasons you voted the way you did you hunker down and cover your ears. The implications of what you have done reinforce your blind spots since to admit you were wrong on such an important question as to your future and more important, your children's future, would be too difficult to bear.

Few things have a right or wrong component since what ever is one persons right is another persons wrong and "rightly" so. 

Our democratic system of balloting every 5 years is itself full of contradictions but at least it's not for life.