TO REFERENDUM OR NOT TO REFERENDUM – IS THAT THE QUESTION?

   

TO REFERENDUM OR NOT TO REFERENDUM – IS THAT THE QUESTION?

“The present is the past rolled up for action, and the past is the present unrolled for understanding.”
― Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History  

 

May 1945 – Victory in Europe. A time for celebration. Yet, politically the coalition was beginning to fragment, cohesion was becoming weaker and politicians of all parties knew that an election was imminent. The only question was, ‘when’.

The Labour Party wanted to delay the election until October fearing that in an early election Winston Churchill’s charisma and record as war leader would sway the electorate. There were, however, two further and less partisan reasons, namely;

• A new electoral register would not be ready until October.
• The difficulty in organising the votes of Service personnel overseas.

Churchill disagreed, arguing that to continue the coalition until October would be detrimental to ministerial and parliament work. He suggested as an alternative the coalition continue until the defeat of Japan and, in support of this, to hold a referendum so that the decision rested with the whole electorate.

Clement Attlee and the Labour leadership did not respond to the suggestion of a referendum but offered a compromise in which the coalition would continue until the defeat of Japan but only on condition the government proceeded with social reforms. However, soon after, when this was put to the Labour Party conference, anger at Churchill’s offer of a referendum as opposed to an election was so great that the suggestion was rejected.

Attlee, whose compromise suggestion had been accepted by Churchill, accepted the will of conference and, in an attempt to restore his standing in the party, went on the attack. It is in this context that the contents of his letter to the prime minister have direct relevance and meaning for the more recent history of political decisions.

He wrote:

“I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum, which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and Fascism…….and can hardly have endeared these expedients to the British heart”

He then concluded with a personal attack:

“The reasons for rejecting an autumn election seem to me to be based not on national interests but on consideration of party expediency. It appears to me that you are departing from the position of a national leader by yielding to the pressure of the Conservative Party…….”

NB: In the event the general election was held on 5^th July 1945.

Despite Clement Attlee’s thoughts on the efficacy of referendums, the first referendum in the United Kingdom was held on 8^th March 1973; the question concerned Northern Ireland sovereignty. Since then a further 10 referendums have been held, of which three were national referendums.

There is no doubt that the issues addressed by these referendums were important and had serious implications for the future structure of the country and our continuing relationships both within and beyond our borders. However, these considerations are not of themselves sufficient to explain the need for referendums – which are in any event are cumbersome and, more often than not, distil complex issues down to a crude, binary choice of potential outcomes. On this basis, why have they been used so frequently during the past 47 years?

The answer lies in the fact that, whilst we are a parliamentary democracy, we are in practice a two party state and, moreover, two parties comprising a range of ideological opinions held together largely with the intention of maintaining the respective party’s apparent unity and potential for power. This structure, in concert with first past post elections, has meant that large numbers of the electorate feel disenfranchised because so many seats continue to elect representatives of one party or the other time and time again.

It might be argued, therefore, that resort to referendums is a means by which the electorate have a meaningful say in the decision making process. I suggest that, in reality, such an instrument merely underlines the weakness of our democratic process and is an abrogation of parliamentary responsibility. Furthermore, the decision to hold the referendums of 1974 and 2016 was a cynical device to avoid aggravating splits in the two main parties and, in the case of the 2011 referendum, to reinforce and maintain a recently contrived coalition government.

Our political process needs an overhaul. The first past post system is no longer fit for purpose – if it ever was – people are disenfranchised and referendums become the patronising thin end of the wedge. It is time to introduce a more sophisticated voting process and the system I suggest should be proportional representation and specifically the single transferable vote. In this system, rather than one person representing everyone in a small area, bigger areas elect a small team of representatives; these representatives reflect the diversity of opinions in the area. Accordingly, the single transferable vote puts power in the hands of the public and not political parties.

By such means, people who for decades have felt disconnected and alienated from the democratic process will have confidence that their vote has value and meaning in the cause of good governance. The duopoly of the Labour and Conservative parties will be significantly diminished as will the spurious use of referendums for the purpose of maintaining the façade of party unity as opposed to national interests.

Parliament can and will assume its rightful place as the sovereign institution for taking all decisions that affect our country’s future and referendums will finally be consigned to history.

Refs:

Attlee and Churchill Leo McKinstry

For further information on proportional representation and the single transferable vote, go to

www.electoralreform.org.uk

Throughout this piece, I have used the word referendum on numerous occasions. I did this in the hope that the reader might become so sick of the sight of this word, that any future reference to it will induce a physical reaction so severe that he or she would not countenance participation in any future REFERENDUM.

J. Neal @ Clemantics.blogspot.