Democracy in its most basic definition is simply that it is a system whereby the citizens exercise power by voting. Its sometimes referred to as a “rule of majority” and a system of processing conflicts which the outcome depends on what the participants do.
In THIS sense, going against the ‘will of the people’ is theoretically undemocratic, but because we live in a representative liberal democracy system, the outcome of a referendum (an advisory one at that) its not that simple. Using the definition of ‘democracy’ as simply a vote, is inaccurate and neglects how our society is set up.
A Liberal (or Western) Democracy is a particular type of democratic system.
The premise is that individuals or small group of individuals can not be trusted with power, and democracy is a way of preventing abuses of power through a system of checks and balances on top of public votes. It spreads power by separating them between the three different branches of government; the executive (the government), the courts and parliament (our elected representatives) and they are held to account by the press.
The real problem with the referendum was its vagueness. The ‘will of the people’ to Leave the European Union was DELIBERATELY kept vague as to what that actually meant. Dominic Cummings and others are on record as saying it. Many of the lead individuals in the leave campaigns were saying we would get a deal like Norway right up to the last minute before the referendum.
What happened after the referendum was we had a problem because there were 17million different versions of what people thought Brexit was. And in this sense there was NEVER a will of the people. Just a vague instruction that no one had any firm detail of what it meant. We just got the slogan ‘Brexit means Brexit’. Its meaningless to this day.
This is where the institutions of our liberal democracy DO kick in to hold power to account. It's a more complex and nuisanced system. Its often abbreviated to simply ‘democracy’, which is confusing.
We have a situation where the executive is deciding unilaterally what ‘the will of the people’ actually meant without asking it.
There were many who used the vote as a means to express the view that the executive of David Cameron was not respecting its citizens and thus they removed him. That’s democracy. It worked in that sense.
But that wasn’t about how we left the EU. the vote was silent on that matter.
You have others who were voting on the basis of sovereignty, others on immigration, others still on wanting more money for the NHS. There was never any single definition and answer.
And strangely when the public were asked if they agreed with Theresa May’s vision of Brexit at the Ge2017, they voted and said ‘Er no’ that vision for our future is not what we had in mind.
We have repeatedly had the executive trying to manipulate the idea that the question of what the referendum meant was answered. They told the public what it meant without consultation. Thats fundamentally undemocratic. It also has tried to stretch its power beyond its limits.
The point of liberal democracy is that it is an ongoing conversation and that the press keep asking questions of the executive to ensure they are not abusing their position to put their interests before the interests of the people as a whole. In this sense we need a variety of media voices from various political positions to constantly ask questions. It's a fundamental PART of democracy. Its certainly not an affront to it. The BBC and C4 are supposed to be technically political neutral, but this still does not mean they should not ask probing questions of the executive, parliament or the courts and how they are carrying out their role. They are SUPPOSED to identify whether a politicians said in May 2016 that we would have a deal like Norway, if they are now saying a deal like Norway is not Brexit. Because thats holding someone to account for what they said.
Equally if the reality is that we have a time limit on how long we have to complete a task, its not political to ask if we can complete it on time. Indeed, if a politician is saying its easy (especially if they know its not) it's a fundamental duty on behalf of the public to call that out.
Liberal democracy, is also never fixed. If there is an event or new information, then people are free to change our minds accordingly with that express these changing views. Our elected representatives are supposed to listen to this and report back on what people are saying and make decisions on our behalf and in our best interest. This is especially important given the referendum was not binding and was so close.
The media is important in this by reporting changing circumstances and to also reflect what its readers / viewers are saying. C4 news in this sense is particularly interesting because its reflective of its viewers. Thats not biased; thats asking the questions that its viewers are asking on their behalf. Because it has younger viewers, it has a duty to reflect that too.
The problem we have here is this conflict between having a democratic vote which doesn’t fit neatly within our liberal democratic structure. Indeed it rather undermines that structure, which is part of the reason they are a really bad idea in a liberal representative democracy because they happen outside the normal parameters of the institutions that prevent abuses of power.
You end up with people saying that it is undemocratic to go ‘against the will of the people’ and you have people who say it is undemocratic to simply go along with what the executive say is the will of the people.
And frankly both positions are technically correct, but in different ways.
The problem exists in this case because of the vagueness of what the will was in the detail. And that very much is up for debate. And that particular debate exists within the framework of a liberal democracy. Attempts to shut that discussion down are an abuse of power by the executive and parts of the media and parts of parliament. This is definitely undemocratic by any definition.
How this is all unravelled and defused is anyone’s guess. It could come at the expense of liberal democracy itself, and that’s really one of my biggest worries at this point.
I’ll just leave it with a quote by one of the founding fathers of the USA (and modern liberal democracy as we know it in this country)
“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.”
John Adams
At the heart of liberal democracy is the need for compromise rather than the tyranny of one group over another. What that is, is what this country needs to work out still.
Sorry its long, but its not a simple thing and frankly this is a discussion that the media should be talking about to help resolve the conflict. Instead the media and the politicians are refusing to do so for their own benefit - not for the benefit of you or me.