Tommie Ullman

Sometimes you hear people argue that it is more democratic to have a referendum than to not have one. I will here explain why I believe they are wrong and why referendums are actually bad for democracy and the political debate.

First of all, we elect politicians and expect them to take responsibility for the overall political and economical development during their electoral term. But then we have to let them actually do so in reality. If we prevent them from implementing the program we elected them to do, then they can never been held accountable for the overall result of their years in power in the next election. If people don’t like the EU, they can vote for EU-sceptical parties. A referendum does not make it more democratic.

What if people change their minds?

If people regret their vote in a parliamentary or presidential election, they can change their minds after four or five years. But what about if they change their minds after a referendum? No one knows how long the result should be morally binding for the politicians. Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? In 1980 Sweden had a referendum about the future for the nuclear power plants. Nobody born after 1962 could vote. Yet, some people refer to that referendum as valid today. Millions of people who voted have died and millions are living as adults today but could not vote because they were not born, didn’t live in Sweden or were under eighteen at the time. Yet, it is still perceived by some as ‘undemocratic’ do go against that referendum.

For how long time is the Brexit referendum valid? Would it be “undemocratic” for an English/British government (depending on what happens with UK) to apply for EU-membership in 2022? In 2028? In 2036? The referendum system lacks replies to these questions.

One alternative against all others?

Another problem with the referendum about EU-membership is that you put one alternative up against all the other alternatives together. It doesn’t make sense. People can read in anything they want in a “no-vote” (or, in this case, a Brexit vote). It is very seldom one single alternative gets an absolute majority. If there have to be an EU-membership referendum, then let the Yes/remain-alternative be up against a joint, well-developed No/leave-alternative. Because now it is very unclear what people have actually voted for. Nigel Farage said a few days ago: ”Putting the brakes on EU immigration, this is what 17.5 million voters asked us to do”

Really? Are all 17.5 million who voted for Brexit informed about that THAT was the question on the ballot? Some voted against bureaucracy, some voted against the membership fee, some voted to punish “the establishment”.

Referendums simplify too much

Referendums are binary. There might be a number of things about the EU that the British people like and want to keep. But in a referendum, there are no room for complicated non-binary discussions. Maybe they hadn’t voted to leave if they had known that a Brexit could lead to lost access to the common market? Now only a full exit is possible without violating the result of the referendum, which might actually result in an outcome that the voters did not wish for.