The arguments put forward by the Brexiters, whether the Tory Brexiteers and Brextremists, or the Labourite Brexiters who argue that the reactionary Brexit vote has to be "respected", have always been dodgy, but they seem to get more so as time goes on, and the demands for some kind of further democratic testing of the decision, either by another referendum, or a General Election, become unstoppable.
The idea that a referendum could ever be a democratic means of deciding Britain's relation to the EU, on the basis of a simple dichotomous vote, was always dubious, even given the history of plebiscites as a favourite tool of demagogues and dictators. That is should be so, when the referendum campaign was fought out almost entirely on the grounds of a personality contest made up almost solely of primadonna Tory politicians, was even more unlikely. That anyone should put any store by a democratic mandate from such a contest is wholly debatable to begin with, and of course, those most insistent upon doing so, whilst being most resistant to any requirement to further test the resilience of that decision are those that secured an ephemeral and tiny majority for their particular opinion on the day.
The idea that it is required to "respect" any democratic is, of course, alien even to the tenets of bourgeois democracy, let alone anything more substantive. The basic requirement of democracy is that those that lose a vote, have every right to continue to argue against it, and thereby to disrespect it, to try to overturn it at the earliest opportunity. If I am a shop steward, and I ask my members to support a vote for continued strike action, and they reject my appeal, I may respond in a number of ways. I might "respect" that decision, and implement it, hoping to fight another day, or if I strongly feel that the decision is wrong, and damaging, I might have to accept that this is the will of the majority, but a will I cannot in good conscience implement. I would then stand down, and ask the members to elect a new steward, whilst I would then continue to argue that the decision had been wrong, and should be reversed. Democracy might require that I accept that those that voted a particular way have a mandate to act upon that decision, it in no way commits me to helping them to do so, or prevents me from trying win a majority for a different course of action.
And, of course, some democratic decisions are themselves so undemocratic that no amount of sophistry about the need to "respect" the will of the majority can force a minority to accept them. No matter how large a majority of the population vote to send jews to the gas chamber, for example, could be democratic, because it directly removes the democratic rights of a section of the population, in the most brutal way, i.e. by murdering them. No matter how large the majority for such a course of action would deny the right of others to actively attempt to overturn and to frustrate such a decision.
The Brexiters argue that many of those that argue the need for a further democratic testing of the Brexit vote, point to the fact that lies were told by the Brexiters during the referendum campaign. Angela Rayner on TV, this morning raised this argument, in saying why she thought another referendum would be a bad thing. Politicians lie in every election, she said, so the Brexit referendum was nothing different. Quite true, but the logic of that argument, which she did not follow through, is that precisely because politicians lie in election campaigns, and because people change their minds as they see the implications of what they have voted for, we then have regular elections, so that the lies told in the election and the lessons learned, can enable voters to change their minds, and kick the bums out.
In fact, the day after every election, the losing politicians always continue to argue that they were right, and attempt to bring about another election so as to overturn the decision of the previous one. So, what is different about the EU referendum that makes the Brexiters so insistent that it should be a one off vote that holds for all time, or at least for another generation? That is especially so, since the percentage of victory was so narrow, and given that the death of old Leave Voters, and eligibility of new young voters, means that simply on the basis of demographic change, that small majority has almost certainly now been reversed.
In fact, we should apply the same logic as applies to any other democratic vote, and we should like the Chartists, be seeking to enhance all of the democratic procedures we already have. The Chartists demanded Annual Parliaments. That would not only facilitate holding lying politicians to account, but contrary to the whining of the Brendas from Bristol, for whom any slight inconvenience to take part in the democratic process is too much to bear, it would facilitate engaging the population in the democratic process to the degree that any meaningful democracy requires, for informed decision making and accountability. A shop steward is recallable by their members, officials of all kinds of organisations have to put themselves up for election every year. Even MP's talked about introducing a right of recall of MP's by their constituents, though it seems to have dropped from sight. So, why should not even some basic democratic norms means that in relation to such a vital issue as Brexit, it is open to regular and sustained challenge?
No comments:
Post a Comment