Sir, – Dr Liam Weeks raises the question of the essential usefulness or indeed legitimacy of referendums and majority opinion, in reference to the recent vote ("Rule by referendum is not the best way to make decisions", Opinion & Analysis, June 2nd). Unfortunately he offers no sensible alternative, other than the rather faint humour of having a referendum on referendums. He suggests that the limited use of referendums internationally is their majoritarian nature, which can be used "to ride roughshod" over the wishes of the minority.
He argues that had the vote been No, it would not have legitimised the denial of rights to the (LGBT) minority, as their basic human rights cannot be voted away by a majority. Their entitlement to such rights can not, of course, be voted away, but their access certainly can; however, the implicit argument seems to be, that if this is true, the majority voting in favour of granting equal marriage rights may equally not be legitimising their grant, does not of course follow.
He comments that referendums reinforce the idea that might is right, or may enforce the latest political trend, that voters may not know precisely on what they are voting. Dr Weeks appears to object to the fact that the judiciary may (and do) interpret the Constitution. He quotes the “architect” of our Constitution as saying in effect “the majority has no right to do wrong”. Well, the architect and his faceless, unelected, advisers didn’t get it right either, which to the plain man trying to make a democratic system work, may not be a reason to ditch it.
Times change, opinions mature and respond, nuances clarify, and this “democratic” ideal we strive for in our Constitution – and referendums – shows itself as a work in progress. That all this process has been apparent in the “constitutional and legal mess” around abortion, for example, is perhaps more likely to serve the citizens better in the longer term.
Complaining about the part of the judiciary in interpreting decisions of the legislature is disingenuous; present the argument for a more finely balanced reference point if one can. It’s worth making the observation that referendums give a majority decision, but the legislature is a higher-level example of majoritarian imposition. Societies have tried rule by elites – the “freeborn”, the wealthy, the connected, the educated, by colour, by creed – none satisfy in the long term. And not to be forgotten, it is too easy to put down the majority vote, when this suits, by suggesting it can only deal with the complex-reduced-to-simplicity, or doesn’t know why it votes as it does, or lacks political knowledge, or is too easily encouraged in trivial or irrational voting.
It seems at present, and for quite some years, that Joe Public thinks fairly sensibly, knows a bit about the world, and uses the democratic tools available without injuring himself too often, and makes a pretty good jury; I think many of us feel safer in his hands than in those of our bureaucrats, chairmen, boards, and experts, all chosen by minorities! Hopefully, we can let him loose, in time, around the issues of social and economic justice, those ignored basic human rights. – Yours, etc,
DR JOHN A CONNOLLY,
Booterstown, Co Dublin.