Rosalynn Carter once said, “A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go, but ought to be.”



There are a third kind of leaders. They take their people to where they neither ‘wanted them to go’, nor they ‘ought to be’.



That is Brexit for you.



A representative democracy (that UK is) assigns political and governance responsibilities to their elected representatives (parliament and elected Prime Minister); who are supposedly more experienced, capable, wise and qualified to run the affairs of the state better than lesser mortals that voters are. Strategic planning, International relationships, Security matters, economic development, social uplift and much more is the exotic stuff that is left to these worthies to think about and execute.



Granted, once or twice in the history of every nation, a ‘do or die’ choice may non-plus our chosen representatives and they may consult outsiders for advice. In the worst case, they may go back to the people directly and ask for their advice by means of a referendum (or plebiscite).

But there is a problem here. A referendum assumes two things,

Firstly that the nation’s leadership (with all the faith we put in their statesmanship, capability, qualification and wisdom) are unable to take a decision on this complicated matter at hand.

Secondly, the populace (whose capability for being as wise as the chosen few is severely limited) is able to decide on the same convoluted issues that the wise politicians failed on.

The first seems like dereliction of duty and the second a fond populist dream.



To cautions us on the pros and cons of referendums, Chris Patten once said,

"I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchlev used to say that—not very surprisingly—they were the favorite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler. They undermine Westminster. What they ensure, as we saw in the last election, is that if you have a referendum on an issue, politicians during an election campaign say: "Oh, we're not going to talk about that, we don't need to talk about that, that's all for the referendum." So during the last election campaign, the euro was hardly debated. I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system, and I wouldn't have anything to do with them. On the whole, governments only concede them when governments are weak."

Some other critics argue that voters in a referendum are more likely to be driven by transient whims than by careful deliberation, or that they are not sufficiently informed to make decisions on complicated or technical issues. Also, voters might be swayed by propaganda, strong personalities, and expensive advertising campaigns. James Madison argued that direct democracy is the “Tyranny of the majority”.

(Excerpts from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum)

Even more ominously, referendums are likely to be considered the last resort. The result of a referendum is then THE final verdict. Evidently, it must be applied only when there is a constitutional crisis or a serious threat to the survival of a society. It should not be used by the ruling elite as a convenient alternative instead of taking tough decisions; or as a tool for dirty politicking.

52% and 48% support for ‘Out’ and ‘In’ also shows that UK is split right in the middle. So to translate this vote to a clear decision is illogical. You can choose a government with this kind of vote split, because there is no earth shaking difference between Labor and Tories. And in any case voters can change their minds five years on. But divorce with the continent is going to suck for all times to come.

This is a tragedy of immense proportions. The worst part is that weeping and wailing is yet to come.

