Referendum questions to blame, not the States vote

From Deputy Gerard Baudains.

MANY writers of letters are clearly annoyed that the States rejected the referendum and argue that democracy was ignored, despite Option B and democracy being mutually exclusive. Clearly many don’t understand the issue, so I’ll try to explain.

Democracy is rule by the majority, so let’s see how the referendum stacks up:

Option B: 6,804 votes: Option A: 6,581 and Option C 3,239.

Some might say option B won by 223 votes (out of a total of 16,624 votes cast).

But where’s the democratic mandate? Can 223 people seriously decide how 100,000 people are governed? Option B was a minority anyway – 6,804 votes versus 9,820 who chose either Option A or C, so no democratic mandate there either.

Because Option B was a minority by either analysis, those people so critical of the States’ decision are actually saying they don’t want democracy.

Those States Members who had the backbone to do what is best for the Island instead of trying for the populist vote should be commended, not criticised and the suggestion, by some, that those who rejected what would have been a disaster were somehow looking after themselves, is an insult to those of us trying so hard to do what is best for our Island.

I do agree, however, with some of the criticism levelled at States Members, and that is that the questions in the referendum were an insult to the public.

Democracy was dealt a severe blow when we changed from committee to ministerial government. Instead of 53 Members running the Island, we now have ten, with the rest scrutinising what they’re doing. Putting aside the inefficiency of this model, by reducing numbers (as Options A and B would have done) Scrutiny would have been decimated, resulting in yet more concentration in power – and a further dilution of democracy. Beware of unintended consequences.

Furthermore, those of us who desperately want change but also understood the loss of Senators and reduction to 42 members would actually make matters worse either had to vote for option C – even though we wanted change – or, like so many, abstain from voting altogether. Sadly there was no Option D: None of the above.

So don’t criticise those who rejected a bad proposal. The ones who deserve criticism are those who formulated the questions – and those members who voted to let such unsatisfactory options go out to a referendum.

And finally, I am somewhat bemused by ex-Senator Horsfall’s critical letters. The whole point of the referendum was to find solutions to the seriously flawed ministerial government we currently have and for which remedies have proven to be extremely elusive. As the ex-Senator was one of the chief architects of this flawed system, one might have expected him to keep a low profile.