AFTER BREXIT

Invitation to the British to seize the opportunity to present the world with another gift

The British can take pride in being the first in quite a number of things that positively affected the lives of the rest of the world, leaving aside the harms they caused in other matters. The most prominent good deed they did was the industrial revolution of the early 19^th century (mostly dated as 1820). J. Watts’ steam engine spearheaded the development of transportation industry, and tools and machinery production brought the textile, coal, and electric power generation to an industrial level. As a result of these two innovations alone colonial practices, international trade, international communication and diplomacy became the backbone of world politics. Furthermore, this internationalization process made the English language the Lingua Franca.

Great Britain became the champion of another event last month by voting for Brexit, then leading the Brits in consternation to street protests and to petitions millions of signatures strong.

I am surprised at the British decision and their reaction to it; I expected the British to challenge the reasons behind the decision rather than demanding another referendum with the naïve expectation of replacing it. Their reaction appears like a third world country reaction.

There are several substantive political reasons for the Brexit decision that make reversal difficult, because they have been debated extensively already and voted upon. There is, however, a procedural reason for the unexpected (and apparently unwanted) result, which can be changed with effects on all democratic decision processes; it is the definition of the majority system.

Majority has always been understood to mean over 50%, except for pre-determined special cases. The silent 49% “minority” never challenged this definition and practice, though it must be outrageous to consider such a large portion of voters as minority. A very small margin of 1% (or sometimes even less) cannot possibly take into account human errors in judgment. It certainly does not take into account that 49% of “voters” may represent more than 49% in terms of the “population as a whole”. Referenda, elections, parliaments, corporate boards, etc. all make decisions that have very important consequences (sometimes unforeseen or unintended) on lives of a great number of people for a long time to come (considering that the reversal of decisions are much more difficult than making them in the first instance). Subjecting the 49% of a population to the preference of 51% is nothing else than unfair dominance by one group over a great portion of society (totalitarianism).

Decisions having lasting effects on social and/or economic conditions of a considerable number of people must be taken with a much greater margin than 1% or less, in order to avoid discrimination of or undue burden on the, so-called, “minority”. The practice of requiring 60% or more (qualified) majority on matters considered “important” attests to the validity of the above argument. Most political or corporate decisions taken by 50+% majority adversely affect the living conditions of millions of people. The determination of importance of issues is subjective. Ruling even by 60 or even 70% majority may still cause hardship on a large portion of the population. 40 or 30% of people cannot be ignored or alienated. A lone person of different opinion versus ten decision makers may be considered minority, and it may be fair to ask him/her to comply with the decision of the rest, because he/she does not have even one vote in support. Although even two out of ten may not be considered minority, admitting that extensive changes in society are not easily absorbed, a proposal of no less than 70% majority may be a cautious step towards achieving better justice. This also strengthens the argument that at least two out of ten supports the view of one, i.e. a solid view that must be taken with respect in any democratic, fair and humanistic society. Admittedly, such a large majority requirement will make decision making quite difficult; but, this is where and why lies the importance of better education and quality debate.

Now is an excellent opportunity for the British to score another first in history by questioning the wisdom of 50+% majority system, and to campaign for a majoritarian system with a much higher percentage. For this, they need to dig deeper than just protesting the Brexit decision and petitioning the renewal of the referendum. The disastrous results of majoritarian democracy in many countries like in Turkey, in some South American and African countries may sympathize the British to the idea of initiating such a change. If the British would pursue this proposed change with diligence and persistence, they will also help minimize unrests in many parts of the world due to political dissatisfaction of large groups in societies caused by the practice of the 50+% majority rule.

The triumph of rational thinking is rare because it requires also courage to win over the resistance of status quo, the establishment, the tradition.

July 2, 2016