The UK’s EU referendum, irrespective of its result, stands as a significant ideological turning-point in the history of the West. A turning point that can, if not thoroughly thought out, tend towards the worst case scenario. Until now, some institutional, economic, social, and scientific advances were considered progress, so that, once established, no one would ever attempt to call them in question, not even by means of a democratic vote. It is this principle –unspoken but vital– that is called into question with the vote on Brexit.
First, by asking this question, David Cameron, opens the door for other countries of the European Union to have the right to ask the same question, to undo what was done by those who have gone before them. Therefore, it will no longer be possible to argue that the European project is moving along at different speeds, in a single direction, and it must be recognized that Europe can now assume a desire for its undoing. More broadly, such a referendum means that people can call into question any progress hitherto regarded as irreversible, such as institutional reform, social gain, and moral reform.
Obviously, it has always been recognized that, in principle, in a democracy the people can end up taking every decision. Nevertheless: according to the principles of our Western notion of law, irreversible progress exists (eg. democracy, freedom of religious practice, ban on child labor, abolition of the death penalty) that just a simple vote cannot undo. To risk to jeopardize all that has already been obtained is to deny the very notion of progress.
If this reasoning is taken to its logical extreme, as some people already do, it will be considered that it is the concept of the accumulation of knowledge itself that can be called into question. For centuries, scientific progress meant to work on new theories. They go beyond the current progress without contradicting one another: science can go beyond Darwin, that is to say, include his vision of life’s history with its wider approach, but not deny it. And certainly not by a political decision, outside the realm of reason.
To admit that nothing is definitely gained, may lead us back to the days when reason and freedom were crushed by faith and fatalism, with now the weapons of democracy destroying the concept of the accumulation of knowledge.
Knowing that a majority vote of the people still may not be enough to reach a conclusion on some issues, considerable thought needs to be given in order to examine them, with cool heads, before it is too late.
We should first make a list of those issues –and it would be passionate, issues that would be enshrined in the Constitution. In particular, a generation should think carefully before changing a situation that could adversely impact future generations. Then there is a need for modification of the constitutional revision procedure to ensure that a vote of circumstances may not have unwanted long-term consequences. All decisions considered as having a heavy impact on the fate of future generations should not be taken by a majority of less than 60% of voters, a decision reaffirmed on three occasions with at least one year apart.
Some will see this position as a desperate attempt by an obsolete oligarchy to maintain an outdated order, by scorning the wishes of the peoples. On the contrary, this involves giving the peoples time to think about the consequences of their actions and prevent the destruction by a generation –on a whim– of what previous generations wanted to leave to the next. In many circumstances, these types of mechanism would have avoided Europe’s descent into barbarism. They might still be a life saver.
j@attali.com