A GROUP of deputies has come up with the ingenious idea of passing a law that would require a majority of between 60 and 80 per cent of votes passed for approval in referendum of the Annan plan. These deputies argue that the issue of approval of the plan, which involves approval of a new constitution, is so important it cannot be decided by simple majority. After all, under normal circumstance, for changes to the constitution to be passed, a simple majority is not adequate, they have argued.
What they ignore is that in the April referendum, we are not just being asked to vote for some change of a provision of the constitution but to decide whether we want a peace deal and the re-unification of the island. There is another difference which they have conveniently ignored. The 70 or 75 per cent majority required for changes to the constitution refers specifically to the legislature and it is a democratic safeguard against a party with a majority in the House, changing the constitution for its own ends. It is a useful and necessary safeguard.
But in a referendum all citizens are entitled to vote. It is very much a case of democracy in action – the majority decides what will happen. Do our illustrious deputies, the custodians of our democracy and the rule of law, not know that democracy is based on ‘one man, one vote’? Do they want to re-write the principles of democracy? Perhaps they should also pass a law barring people from Famagusta and Morphou, who will return to their homes in the event of a settlement, from voting in the referendum, because their vote would determined by personal interests.
Their rationale defies belief. They are claiming that a 51 per cent ‘yes-vote’ should not be considered approval for such an important issue. But they are perfectly happy that a 40 or 30 per cent (they have not yet decided the majority required) ‘no-vote’, could veto a settlement. This is a totally new concept of democracy whereby the majority would be obliged to follow the wishes of the minority. It is a patronising attitude, based on the premise that deputies know what is good for citizens and have some divine right to protect them because they cannot be trusted to make the right decision. Needless to say, the ‘right’ decision, for the deputies who have come up with this outrageously fascistic idea, is a ‘no-vote’.
And this is what it is all about. These deputies do not want a settlement and are prepared to re-write the basic tenets of democracy (one man, one vote) in order to achieve their objective.
