Article content continued

The long and the short of it is that the Yes side failed to make their case, though they outspent the No side by a ratio of nearly 150 to 1. That some are now inclined to blame the public for their defeat, or to conclude that the failure of the voters to give them the answer they sought proves they should never have been asked, probably helps explain the result. An enormous reservoir of distrust has built up between the political class and the public in this country, in part because of attitudes like this. People can sense when they are being patronized, and they tend not to take it well.

The notion that such questions are too difficult for the public to understand could as well be said about elections, an infinitely more complex exercise in which the voter is required to sum up, in one vote, his views on the leaders, the parties, the platforms, the local candidates, their stances on local issues and so on. Yet no one says after an election defeat, “well, that was a mistake — we won’t hold one of those again.”

We don’t want to claim the people are infallible. But the remedy, if any is needed, is not to permit them fewer such opportunities to speak their mind, but more. Referendums are unusual events in Canada. People may still feel as if they are less an opportunity to make their own decisions about public policy than to get back at the people who do. More regular consultation on major issues would go a long way to strengthen the sinews of self-government.

Not every subject can or should be put to a referendum. But the question of whether to raise taxes is of a particular kind: it was, after all, the same question that first forced kings to consult parliaments. That the public declined to open their wallets this time does not mean they would do the same the next. But whether they would or not, the fact remains: it’s their money. If politicians would like them to fork over more of it, it is only fair to ask them. This should not be the last such exercise but the first.