The perils of a majoritarian democracy

While the brouhaha over Brexit is yet to settle down, it is worth pondering over the inefficiency of a simple majoritarian democracy. The Brexit vote stands testimony to this inefficacy. While a simple majority (>50%) may well be the simplest way to ascertain public sentiment, it does not allow for a robust representation of minority voices. Democracy, after all, is all about ensuring equal representation of people. It is all the more important for equal representation, especially in a referendum like the Brexit that tends to have an economic impact on countries all over the world. Unlike the Presidential or Prime Ministerial elections that happen once every 4 or 5 years, the Brexit referendum is a one-time affair. When xenophobes like Nigel Farage, Michael Gove or Boris Johnson are able to induce fear psychosis among gullible moderates who could be swayed to their advantage, it clearly exposes the flaw in a simple majoritarian system. After all, given time, there are good chances these moderates could swing in favour of the other[Remain] side. As Shashi Tharoor aptly writes in this bit, “Referenda change the basis of national decision-making from politics to popular sentiment, and the sources of judgement from experts to demagogues”.

 The unstated assumption for any referendum is that the people are rational enough to reason the pros and cons of the issue under consideration and draw a sensible conclusion. If we could just introduce an iota of doubt to this assumption, the whole argument of organising referenda falls apart. While self-satisfying rationality is an inherent concept in economics, it is not so in politics. Were we to assume everyone acts rationally[in political terms] while keeping the larger interest of the society in mind, there would not be any thefts or murders in the country. One of the main political motivations behind the government imposing prohibition on liquor is based on the assumption that humans are not politically rational. While serving one’s self-interest is fundamental to economics, politics is about placating the society as a whole. This calls into question the entire rationale behind organising a referendum.

It is also worth musing over the supposedly representative democracy of the UK. When MP’s are elected primarily to represent their constituencies in the Parliament, should it not be left to the wisdom of these people in decisions as huge as the Brexit referendum? An elected parliamentarian acts a single unifying voice of his constituency and it must be left to him/her to exercise prudence while judging policies or issues and to not be swayed by the mercurial emotions that prevail at that time. It makes no sense for elected representatives to abjure responsibilities for which they were elected in the first place. The civil society always has the option of overthrowing them in the subsequent elections if the parliamentarian had acted against public will. This clearly provides enough room for the vacillating public sentiment, which was clearly lacking in the Brexit referendum.

So what could be some possible solutions to avoid another disaster like the Brexit? One suggestion, if countries still want to delegate matters of huge ramifications to the public, is to at least have a supermajority of two-thirds of the public vote. This allows for the minority voice to be heard to an extent. However, the counter argument to this is that – this gives power to a one-third minority to suppress a majority. In that event, probably a three-fifths majority, as followed in the UN Security Council resolutions could be adopted. Another option is to simply let the elected representatives do their job of deciding on issues of great import. Again, a simple 50% majority does not hold water even at the parliament. The referendum should be supported by at least two-thirds of the parliament. All constitutional amendments require a two-third supermajority in both houses of parliament in India and in the US congress too. Another suggestion, albeit a dilatory one, as elucidated in this piece by Neera Chandhoke, is to have three referenda over a span of six years. She goes on to explain this with an example of the Swiss canton Jura, in which the predominantly French speaking catholics of Northern Jura consistently voted on three referenda held in 1959, 1974 and 1978 to leave Berne and form a separate canton, while the Protestant dominated Southern Jura decided to remain with Berne. Finally, the outcome of a referendum could just be used as a tool to gauge public sentiment. It doesn’t necessarily have to be binding.

An Indian version of Brexit would be to throw referenda for, say, whether India should leave the SAARC or whether India should leave the BRICS. It certainly sounds like a ludicrous idea and it is one. Similarly, the Brexit vote must have happened in the parliament within closed doors rather than out in the public. Now that the people have delivered their verdict, what will happen remains to be seen, or as the French would predict, Que sera, sera [What will be, will be].