Views of a Nepali Economist

On October 2, 2016 Colombians voted on a referendum that would bring peace by ending the 50-year conflict between the Colombian government and the FARC rebels. The government and the rebels had been negotiating on a peace agreement since 2012. By the end of September 2016, the agreement had been reached and it was lauded and approved by everyone in Colombia—the government, the rebels, and the larger civil society. The only step that remained was a formal endorsement of the end of conflict and establishment of peace by the Colombian people through a simple referendum vote of Yes or No.

The question on the referendum was simple: Do you support the final agreement to end the conflict and build stable, lasting peace? Everyone in Colombia thought that a win for ‘Yes’ was a foregone conclusion. Generations of Colombians had suffered enough in the last half century through the conflict with the FARC. So, ordinary Colombians would vote ‘Yes’ for peace. However, 50.2 percent of Colombians on October 2 voted ‘No.’ The world was shocked. How could ordinary Colombians not agree to resolve a conflict that has lasted for over 50 years? Do they not want peace?

The Colombian referendum vote came on the heels of the Brexit referendum vote, the results of which had also shocked the world. However, there have been numerous other referendum votes around the world in the past. When the process and results of all those referendums are considered, we can arrive at a few lessons on why referendums sound like a good idea, but are actually incredibly bad.

First, most referendums have a simple win-lose criteria: whichever side gets more than 50 percent of the vote is the winner. This idea basically arises out of the belief that the voting public has complete information on the issues of the referendum. Therefore, the simple majority would always arrive at the ‘correct’ conclusion. However, any social scientist can tell that this is an incredibly stupid idea. Nobody has complete information. For example, there were news reports after the Brexit vote about the British people googling about the impacts of leaving the EU the day after the vote. It was pretty clear that the voting public did not have complete information about the significance of their vote.

Second, on the surface, referendums appear to be our political system giving us—the common people—a chance to voice our opinion on the huge, critical issue that could make or break the country/region. At least, that is what everyone presents a referendum as. That is never true. Referendums are also a result of our elected political leaderships and the political system avoiding making tough, complex decisions. It happens when political leadership faces a situation when it is damned if it did something, and damned if it did not. So, what do they do? They ask the public to make the decision for them. Brexit is a case in point. The point is: referendums are sometimes the result of our political leadership shirking from the duties that we elected them to perform.

Third, following from the point above, referendums often occur on issues in which there is a huge element of ‘emotion’ across the nation/region. Because the issues are often emotional and the public is under-informed on the issues, the referendum vote can be hijacked by rogue elements that would have no chance to do so in a proper political setting of a legislative chamber. This is what happened with the Brexit vote, in which the rogue forces were able to persuade just enough members of the public to achieve the destabilizing result and end the prime ministership of David Cameron.

Finally, the worst thing about referendums are the simple ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ options. Conflicts and issues have nuances that the voting public may not have had the time to explore and understand. Even when the crucial understanding and exploration has been performed by negotiating groups and leaderships, the voting public may not be completely aware of what the negotiations were like and what the results are. Therefore, asking the public to vote a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to end—say, a 50-year old conflict that has impacted the lives of generations—is unfair to the voting public.

Let us bring this issue closer to home. Let us ask ourselves what the results would have been in Nepal if we had held referendums on two most contentious decisions that were made in the recent past: monarchy and secularism.

On May 28, 2008, Nepal was declared a federal republic and the monarchy was abolished. A nationwide public perception survey commissioned by The Asia Foundation three years later in 2011 showed that only 43 percent supported the overthrow of the monarchy. That support was lower in future surveys. So, what would have happened if there was a referendum for monarchy in Nepal? The 2013 election result gives us a clue. The pro-monarchy Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal, headed by Kamal Thapa, won zero seats out of the 240 First-Past-the-Post seats. However, its pro-monarchy campaign resonated with the people and brought the party 24 proportional seats, making it the fourth-largest political party and a major player in our Westminster-style compromise-laden government system. The result demonstrated that if there was a referendum in Nepal to determine the fate of monarchy, the monarchy would still be alive and well.

On the issue of secularism, the 2011 survey showed that over 57 percent of the Nepali public wanted the country to be a ‘Hindu’ state. Surveys in the following years showed similarly high support for a ‘Hindu’ Nepal. For example, a follow-up survey in 2013 showed that the support was lowest—49 percent—in the Eastern region and highest—85 percent—in the Far-west. The large support for monarchy, coupled with the large support for a Hindu state, resulted in Mr Thapa’s “one vote for dai (the brother), one vote for gai (the cow)” campaign slogan, which brought his party the 24 proportional seats. That result, along with the annual survey results, showed that a referendum for secularism would have been soundly defeated in Nepal.

What would have happened if there was a referendum in 2007 on whether to accept the peace deal between the Nepali government and the Maoist rebels? Would we have chosen peace or would we have gone the Colombian way? What will happen if one of the provinces in the future —say, the Madhesh province—brings a referendum to secede from Nepal? Will the people in that province say ‘Yes’ or will they say ‘No’ like the people in Quebec, Canada did in 1995? These are issues that ask for cooler negotiations and compromises from political leaderships, and not a referendum that allows the ill-informed, emotional, and riled-up public to vote on.

Labels: Brexit, Colombia, CPA, Madhesh, maoists, monarchy, referendum, secularism