Referendums are now more divisive than ever

Turkish vote a reminder of pitfalls of binary choices

I trace my earliest political memory to October 1995. I was trying to fit in at a high school in a neighbouring Laurentian town that was significantly more nationalistic and pro-Parti Québécois than anything I had been accustomed to. It was the kind of town that put up flags at every intersection in June and left them up until November.

Normally, a nationalist milieu wouldn’t have been an issue for a quiet, curious kid who spoke decent French. But the premier had just blamed a sovereignty referendum loss on “money and ethnic votes.” I was a Sephardic Jew in PQ Country, and Mom drove me to school in a Saab.

My hometown was comparatively more diverse and laissez-faire politically, but the region voted narrowly for Quebec to negotiate a “new economic and political partnership” with Canada; not because people felt resentful of or inconsolably alienated from Canadian society, but because they were reasonable people, hardworking and overtaxed, trapped by self-serving politicians into making one of two choices with few hints where either would lead.

The societies may be largely incomparable, but I am reminded of this tension and the dangers of for-or-against referendums as Turks have just, at least according to their scandalplagued government, voted in favour of a sharp turn toward authoritarianism and away from democracy for the first time in nearly a century.

Reductive populism mixed with ethnocentric nationalism and propaganda was also the toxic brew that contributed to Leave forces in the United Kingdom being granted permission to “Brexit” from the European Union (polls show the result would have probably been different today).

Donald Trump edging out Hillary Clinton to win the U.S. presidency backed by Russian dezinformatsiya could also be seen as a similarly destructive consequence of populism. With only two effective options to lead the executive branch, divisiveness is unavoidable and progress is slow.

Looking at some of the more consequential referendums worldwide in recent times, it’s clear that undemocratic forces are taking advantage of both our innate tribalism, as well as groundbreaking technology (social media, artificial intelligence) designed to maximize the impact of propaganda like never before.

In a disinformation age, referendums offer propagandists excellent odds. Quebecers, I would later learn, are thankfully more pacifistic than nationalistic, and thus social tension between the Oui and Non forces has been kept to a minimum; but it nonetheless persists.

While my family was always categorically federalist, grateful for Canadian liberals easing restrictions on Jewish immigration, I couldn’t resist asking my parents a taboo question on that eventful, if not mildly traumatic evening: What if you don’t like either side?

The exclusionary message of Oui forces helped mould me into a lifelong federalist by default. That loaded choice and the uncomfortable aftermath of a narrow Non win, even as a preteen not yet eligible to vote, turned me and many otherwise independent-minded people into belligerent tribalists on the issue of sovereignty.

With this in mind, the festering, nonsensical sovereignist premise — that Quebec cannot achieve its full potential within Canada — continues to be the albatross around the neck of a society that is failing an educated, creative and diverse citizenry.

If a leader in the new-media era wants to impose rapid, radical change on a society without the unpleasantness of a coup or war, a fake news-backed referendum campaign now seems to be the most efficient option available.

Referendums are by nature divisive, more than ever, and should be called infrequently, if ever. What seems on the surface to be the purest form of direct democracy is in practice today far less democratic or representative of effective, informed public opinion than a typical parliamentary election.

I fear for Turks and all peoples battling division, but am consoled by the words of Yogi Berra, who defied binaries: “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.”