It's difficult to write about marriage for homosexuals without expressing a personal opinion. By way of preamble I would say that a lot of us (most of us?) probably don't have a deeply-held view on this and a host of other subjects, but we feel that we ought to! Human nature is such that there is a limit to the number of issues that one can feel strongly about unless of course one is personally and directly concerned. I hope I haven't offended anyone in writing these lines, but it just seems to me hypocritical to claim otherwise.
That said, what is the best way to ensure that the vast uncommitted mass of us is forced to decide where it stands on this and other issues? The answer is surely a referendum, together with the debate leading up to it. I can understand the argument against referenda: the French would probably have not abolished the death penalty in 1981 if the question had been submitted to the popular vote. But I am not persuaded by it. The death penalty (a dead letter anyway for many years) would no doubt have been abolished by referendum a few years later. As things stand, it is difficult to escape the impression that governments, here as elsewhere, dislike referenda because they cannot be trusted to deliver the required result, because the people really don't know what they are talking about! This is no doubt true but then do Westminster and the Assemblée Nationale know what they are talking about either?
Most of the arguments against referenda would, in my opinion, disappear if they (referenda) became regular features of our democratic life, as they have long been in Switzerland. Switzerland, for all its imperfections, is by far the most democratic state on earth. Can you name a single Swiss politician? Neither can I! And that is precisely why British and French politicans are so much against the idea of referenda.
That said, what is the best way to ensure that the vast uncommitted mass of us is forced to decide where it stands on this and other issues? The answer is surely a referendum, together with the debate leading up to it. I can understand the argument against referenda: the French would probably have not abolished the death penalty in 1981 if the question had been submitted to the popular vote. But I am not persuaded by it. The death penalty (a dead letter anyway for many years) would no doubt have been abolished by referendum a few years later. As things stand, it is difficult to escape the impression that governments, here as elsewhere, dislike referenda because they cannot be trusted to deliver the required result, because the people really don't know what they are talking about! This is no doubt true but then do Westminster and the Assemblée Nationale know what they are talking about either?
Most of the arguments against referenda would, in my opinion, disappear if they (referenda) became regular features of our democratic life, as they have long been in Switzerland. Switzerland, for all its imperfections, is by far the most democratic state on earth. Can you name a single Swiss politician? Neither can I! And that is precisely why British and French politicans are so much against the idea of referenda.
Re your final para I normally disagree with you as a default due to your impressive track record of being wrong about everything always...........but now, Sir, you have rung the bell and gained entitlement to the cigar or coconut.
ReplyDeleteThe Swiss set up is the only one I can think of that has a nodding aquaintance with actual democracy. Hence its unpopularity with the "democratic" rabble in power almost everywhere.
I wish we had it in the UK and have long promoted it with zero success. Perhaps my mad swivelling eyes are an impediment?
I am happy to be in such distinguished company, kernel, and I think you must feel similarly honoured. Am I right in thinking that there will be a referendum on Scottish independence? Have just checked. Yes I am. Then why the hell not for a series of other issues of constitutional importance?
ReplyDelete