Britain’s referendum on whether to stay in the European Union or to leave has come and gone. Leave won by a slight margin. The aftermath of the referendum was somewhat unusual.
One would have expected the Leave camp to celebrate wildly, yet, in the BBC’s words, the interview that Boris Johnson gave was “subdued”. Moreover, while Prime Minister David Cameron said he intended to start the process of leaving the Union immediately, Johnson said there was no rush.
More than two million signatures backed the idea of a second rethink referendum. Some complained that many of the Leavers are old folk, most of whom somewhat uneducated. I take it that they implied that their votes should not count!
Scotland is quite unhappy and they seem to be toying with the idea of holding another referendum to reconsider independence from Britain. Even Northern Ireland is somewhat uneasy given its common border with Eire, and so are the Gibraltarians.
A widespread impression is that the nation made the wrong choice. For the rest of the countries of the EU this is not just an impression. Before and after the referendum many were critical of the campaign because of the lies and inaccuracies that had been told and, alas, believed.
All this shows the limitations of the democratic system as practised in the West. We think very highly of our democratic system, and I concede that I cannot think of a better system to choose those who govern us. However, this should not blind us to its shortcomings.
Bernard Shaw rightly said that “it assures us that we won’t have a better government than we deserve”. This is so because democracy implies that quantity equals quality, but quantity is not always wiser, especially as it easily succumbs to the demagogues’ often untrue or imprecise slogans.
The situation becomes even more precarious in the case of referenda. In order to have a referendum, issues have to be reduced to their simplest form so that the choice will be an either or. This is what they did with Brexit: the electorate had to decide between remaining and leaving.
Unfortunately, we are using the same method to decide ethical issues
There was a complexity of reasons both for remaining and for leaving. Rather than trying to balance them out and find out which, in the end, would have been the better choice, the two camps simply opposed one option to the other, giving the impression that one was totally beneficial while the other was totally damning.
Unfortunately, in our societies we are using the same method to decide ethical issues. We are asking people to decide what’s right and what’s wrong, believing that the majority knows best. Brexit has shown us that this is not necessarily so even in a political matter, let alone when it comes to ethical issues.
Ethical issues demand a profound philosophical reflection on the nature and meaning of things and on their relevance to human living. Deciding on such issues demands that we base our choices on what is truly human and what is truly beneficial for society rather than on what would satisfy one’s immediate needs or desires.
Matters are further complicated when people try to push their own agenda, oftentimes citing rights that may not be rights at all, and falsely presenting positions as simple and obvious. In such an environment it becomes difficult to analyse issues objectively and decide personally.
Ultimately, decisions have to be taken because Parliament needs to legislate. I am not suggesting there are easy ways of making choices. But this is precisely the point: deciding according to the majority is an easy way of making choices but it does not assure us that we are making the right ones.
If those responsible really desire the good of society, they should do their utmost to create a non-polarised environment that would help people detach themselves from personal and party agendas; precise information should be made available so they can think issues through profoundly rather than superficially, while always listening to other people. This – rather than voting through a referendum – would be true democracy.
ajsmicallef@gmail.com
Fr Alfred Micallef is a member of the Society of Jesus.