Why another referendum is NOT antidemocratic
Published October 9, 2018
© Georg Boomgaarden
Margaret Thatcher once called referenda an instrument of demagogues and tyrants. And I always insist that referenda are ‚democracy without safeguards‘ (no two chambers, no hearings, no three readings, that are typical for parliamentary democracy).
Now some new demagogues declare that one referendum has such a high democratic legitimacy that holding another one to correct the result would be utterly undemocratic. We know that Brexiters promote that view, but internationally demagogues like the former Greek minister of finance Yannis Varoufakis joined that opinion.
The most eminent expression of democracy are general free and secret elections. Only Latin American caudillos like Maduro in Venezuela or the Castros in Cuba, believe that once the people accepted them this is a once for all time decision that must never be revised.
It is the essence of democracy that after an appropiate period the people can revise its opinion and have another choice. Without regular elections, without the chance for change of policies, there is no democracy.
There are no reasons why referenda, which give an answer to a political question at a specific time should have a special sanctity, as if they have a kind of papal infallacy. When people can change their view on the former result of an election, dismissing the governing party and electing another one after some time it would be utterly undemocratic to deny the right to revise the view on the result of a referendum by another one. I am no friend of referenda. However to express the change of views about a former referendum another referendum could be appropriate.
© Georg Boomgaarden