It was with a great sigh of relief that I watched Premier Tony Wakeham announce there would not be a referendum on the newly-minted memorandum with Quebec on Labrador power development. I am all for democracy and all for government keeping election promises but that notion, driven by common sense, has its limits.

It is challenging enough that we have provincial elections every four years where we get to choose who holds the reins of power. That concept of “one person one vote” is sometimes enough to frighten you spitless. It looks good on the surface but God almighty. The idea of everyone voting on important matters in a referendum should keep you up nights in despair.

In general elections you are voting on what a political party SAYS it will do if elected. They are called election promises and they do not have to be kept. The idea of promising to hold a referendum on any new Labrador power agreement falls into that category. There is no punishment for not doing what you said you would do. In politics, breaking a promise or an undertaking is not a crime.

Now let me step aside here for a moment to tell you a true story that will back up my notion on referenda. I had an associate in the media who held a decent job that paid him decent wages. He paid his taxes. He went to George Street on the weekend. He caused the society in which he operated no trouble. He voted in all elections. He was Joe Citizen, the heart and soul of our democracy.

Joe, however, held the honest belief that the Second World War lasted for seven days and somehow involved Israel and Egypt. I am not making this up. That was the level of my friend’s grip on current affairs. He had somehow, in his mind, conflated the Second World War and the Seven Days War in the Middle East. This man would get to vote in any referendum.

That is the problem with democracy when things wind up in a referendum. It is a hope at least that when we vote for a provincial government, we will elect a body of people whose general political leaning will reflect our thoughts and who will be judged not by one event but rather but the performance of government on a range of issues over four years or so. It is not perfect, but it does not hold the absolute dangers of rule by referendum or running things by what is most popular. I look into the great abyss and ask you to consider how a referendum on capital punishment would turn out if it were held today. Would we confirm our stand that where will be no capital punishment in Canada? I am not sure. I do know right from wrong, but I am not sure about that vote if it were held.

Consider the idea of abortion. How would a free ballot on abortion go in Canada? I do not know. I like our abortion laws, but I would not want the idea put into the hands of every voter for a “yes or no” vote. A wise person said to me once that every man or woman in Canada is against abortion until their daughter needs one.

Do you see my point? A referendum is something for exceedingly rare occasions. The last time I thought something was “referendum worthy” it was over denominational education where the cost of all the school boards was “driving us into the poor house” as mom used to say.

Am I saying the electorate is not smart enough or a ‘one person, one vote’ decision on a power agreement with Quebec? Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The government of Premier Wakeham has a mandate to govern Newfoundland and Labrador. The government used that mandate. Yes, they broke an election promise but Holy God Almighty, if everyone who broke an election promise got kicked out of the House of Assembly you would not have enough members left for a game of cards.

Now this is an odd point of view for me to defend and there are those who will be angry in my speaking in favour of a broken promise on a referendum. I will leave you with a final word on democracy and voting. It is a thought often credited without proof to Winston Churchill. He did not actually say that. It is more correctly traced to the writings of Socrates. Apart from all the rhetoric on government it reads.          

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

Whoever said that you can file the idea away under ‘food for thought’.

You can contact Jim Furlong at jfurlong@ntv.ca