The following letter was published in
the Irish News on 21st December 2004.
An Open Letter to Mark Durkan
Dear Mark,
In the Irish Times of Dec 14th, you
suggest that "the DUP and Sinn Féin will try
to divide the North between them". But is the SDLP
not partially to blame for the fact that they can? Was not
the original Belfast Agreement designed so that the then majority
parties, the UUP and yourselves, could control, well, almost
everything?
'Parity of esteem' was the cry, and
decisions were to be based, not on a simple majority, but
on a twin majority, one unionist and one nationalist. Instead,
therefore, of the unionists ranged against the nationalists,
Northern Ireland was to enjoy a different majority rule, with
the 'nice' people ranged against the 'not so nice'.
But why must every question be a dichotomy?
Why must every dispute be resolved via a choice of only two
alternatives? Why must every question be decided by a form
of (simple, weighted, qualified or twin) majority voting?
In conflict resolution work, the professional
mediator invariably uses open questions. Firstly, they ask
all concerned, what options are possible. Then, in what is
often termed shuttle diplomacy, they identify which option,
amended if need be, is everyone's highest average preference.
In politics, however, the question is always
closed! Are you for or against? Are you communist or capitalist?
Are you British or Irish? Or lastly, to quote the nonsense
of George W Bush, Are you with me or against me?
"The principle of a free vote [is]
… fundamental," you say. But a vote is not
"free" if the question itself is closed. Yes or
no? they ask. But what if it's either neither or both? After
all, I am neither communist nor capitalist. Secondly, as the
child of a mixed marriage - my father was an Irish Protestant,
my mother an English Catholic - I am both British and Irish.
And lastly, I am as strongly opposed to the violent 'spectaculars'
of Osama Bin Laden as I am to the war-mongering madness of
Dubya!
Why do politicians so dislike pluralism? Ha, simple. Because
they like to control. The two-option majority vote has been
used by 'control-freaks' of the malign variety - Napoleon,
Mussolini, Hitler, Duvalier, Khomeini and others - as well
as by those of a more benign intent: Messrs. Ahern and Blair,
to name but two. Neither of the latter, however, has ever
embraced multi-option voting. Bertie could have held a multi-option
referendum on abortion, for example, for the Green Paper identified
seven possibilities. But no, the electorate was given a dichotomy,
yes or no. And the House of Commons could have held a multi-option
vote when debating five possibilities for the House of Lords.
But no, they took five majority votes and lost the lot!
There are no black and white questions in
politics, save perhaps this: which side of the road shall
we drive on? But the only country to hold a referendum on
this question - Sweden, in 1955 - actually had three options
on the ballot paper: 'right', 'left' and 'blank'. Maybe those
who voted 'blank' were indifferent, or perhaps they felt we
shouldn't drive at all! That was up to them.
And the Belfast Agreement would be more durable
(a) if all 'key' decisions were taken on the basis of an open
question, i.e., a multi-option preference vote; (b) if all
appointments were based on a PR election; and (c) if any referendum
on our future constitutional status was also multi-optional.
In a word, whether voting on a decision or on an appointment,
the outcome should always be that option and/or those candidates
with the highest average preference(s). After all, by definition,
everyone can influence the average. And an Agreement is inclusive
only when it includes everyone!
OurKingdom, the new economics foundation and the de Borda Institute recently gave interested parties from think tanks, research groups and campaigning organisations, and members of the general public, the opportunity to participate in an online trial of consensus decision making.
The de Borda Institute and nef (the new economics foundation) have received a grant from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust to test the potential of consensus voting More...
Site information now available in a number
of langugages
