After the mess and almost equal divide
in the United kingdom's public opinion on whether to stay in the
European Union or exit it (Brexit) my fear is that we here are
walking a road where angels fear to tread.

From what I can gauge there seems to be
a similar divide on whether to go ahead with the cruise berthing
facility as it is proposed or to hold a referendum on it.

As with the UK one, the for and the
against alter the facts available, or not available, to suit the
particular agenda they have adopted.

I have to ask the question, therefore,
what is the purpose of electing a government if it is going to be
ruled by referendums?

There are cases, of course, where
governments need to gauge the people's opinion, especially when there
is dissidence within their own party ranks.This can also help to
avoid riots and marches.

In the UK they set up an independent
body to study the role of referendums and these are some of their key
findings:

First, referendums have an important
role to play within the democratic system, but how they interact with
other parts of that system is crucial. They must be viewed as
co-existing alongside, rather than replacing, representative
institutions. They can be useful tools for promoting citizen
participation in decision-making, but they are not the only, or
necessarily the best, way of doing so.

■ Second, referendums should be
conducted in a way that is fair and effective. The rules should
enable a level playing field between the competing alternatives.
Those rules should also empower voters to find the information they
want from sources they trust, so that voters feel confident in the
decisions

they reach.

■ Third, the regulation of
referendums must keep up with the changing nature of political
campaigning, particularly campaigning through social media.

Referendums have an important role to
play within the democratic system. They are particularly suited to
resolving fundamental questions of sovereignty and constitutional
change. But referendums also have limits:

■ They cannot replace the
institutions of representative democracy. Citizens do not have the
time or the resources to participate in all the policy decisions
necessary for the functioning of a complex modern democracy.
Representatives can dedicate time to consider such issues in great
detail, engage in deliberation with other representatives and make
informed decisions on a wide range of topics. Representative
institutions are also needed to provide for ‘joined up’ thinking
across policy areas.

■ Referendums encompass one crucial
element of democracy: deciding between options through voting. But
other equally important dimensions of democracy – discussion,
deliberation and compromise – are not intrinsic to referendums.
Given these limits, careful thought should be given to how
referendums fit into the wider democratic system:

Referendums should be conducted in line
with two overarching objectives:

■ The alternatives should compete on
a level playing field.

■ Voters should be able to find the
information they want from sources they trust.

■ An inquiry should be conducted into
the regulation of political advertising across

print, broadcast and online media, to
consider what form regulation should take for each medium and whether
current divergences of approach remain justified.

■ Imprints should be required on
digital campaign materials, as on other forms of campaign materials.

■ A searchable repository of online
political advertising should be developed, including information on
when each advertisement was posted, to whom it was targeted, and how
much was spent on it.

Additionally, when planning for the
referendum itself and the preceding referendum campaign, the
following questions should be addressed:

■ What can be done to reduce the risk
of polarisation and lasting political divisions after the referendum?

■ What can be done to maximise the
availability of high-quality information, and minimise the risk of
misrepresentation and confusion?

■ Should a deliberative exercise for
citizens be provided during the referendum campaign itself?

To read the whole report go to:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution-unit/files/182_-_independent_commission_on_referendums.pdf

Dr Adam Quinn, Senior Lecturer in
International Politics, summed up the pros and cons of referendums as
this:

“Referendum campaigns themselves can
be savagely divisive, especially when the prospect of a narrow
victory tempts campaigners to use every argument at their disposal.
Political division in both the UK and Colombia has been markedly
intensified by the 2016 campaigns there.”

As for my question, “Do the general
public always know best?”

I will answer it myself? No. That is
why we elect a government. The alternative is to be ruled by experts
Those who know best.

The basic premise of democracy has
always been that it doesn’t matter how much you know: you get a say
because you have to live with the consequences of what you do. Voters
should be around long enough to suffer for their own mistakes.

For more on this argument go to:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/01/why-replacing-politicians-with-experts-is-a-reckless-idea