We find ourselves at one of those pivotal stages in the evolution of our Australian democracy, where the mechanism for changing our Constitution has been set into motion and we can actually see the moving parts of our system at work around us. Slowly, but surely, the winds of public opinion are beginning to stir as the collective will of the people begins to take shape and shift too and fro as it searches for the direction it wishes to go.
It's a rare event, the altering of the blueprint for our country made deliberately onerous in order to assure it could not change with the whims of society, but required the inexorable momentum of the collective will of the nation to carry the new way of being who we are to the pinnacle of success. It protects against a divisive issue narrowly squeaking in with almost as many people opposed to it as supporting it, by requiring an overwhelming majority of Australians to accept it, ensuring it reflects the will of the most voices, not the loudest.
Soup of Ideas
It’s such a momentous event that many people who will get a say in this one will have never experienced one before. It will also be different than any of its predecessors, with the internet now such a ubiquitous part of our lives that there was even talk of scrapping the paper components entirely. The internet will also enable the views of those supporting and opposing it to be disseminated instantaneously to the whole country, a constant stream of information and opinion and news to be absorbed from beginning to end of the process instead of one digestible lump and that’s it.
The problem will be the sheer volume of information to sort through, and how to identify what is useful, what is accurate, and what is opinions worth considering. There will be false data, both unintentional and deliberately misleading, and passionate rhetoric that is born of sincere conviction about the good of the nation, and those based on ignorance and ulterior motives. Unfortunately, it will often be the loudest or most attention grabbing that will be heard, rather than the most profound or considered.
The Death of Civilised Debate
One aspect that will not be unique to this referendum, but a constant component of every other election, public debate, or social movement, is the way in which both sides will portray themselves as the only possible view that informed people of good faith can possible hold, and the other as one you could only arrive at if you were ignorant or intolerant or speaking not out of conviction but a desire to spoil the debate.
There is no acknowledgement that those disagreeing could have arrived at their position after the same careful and considered consideration as their opponents, or that the arguments they raise could be of genuine concern and important to make part of the conversation. Instead, they are dismissed as straw men or attempts to poison the debate. Instead of a conversation between different viewpoints, it becomes a competition of who can shout the loudest or score the most points against their opponents. It leaves legitimate concerns unaddressed and alienates the undecided, and creates an environment where even genuine desire to understand is patronised and dismissed.
Starting Stronger
The current referendum has started with one position enjoying a significant lead in support, and riding a wave of support from the public, business, government, and culture. It has been promoted as the only choice for Australia if it wants to move forward, and the only one good, decent people could support. To support the “No” vote is to go against the popular grain, and be willing to endure palpable disapproval.
The government rhetoric has been to loudly denounce those parties or organisations that have thrown their support behind the “No” vote, or have yet to endorse a position. They are either accused of standing on the wrong side of history, or acting in bad faith and trying to sow doubt under the banner of asking for detail or raising concerns.
Lumpenproletariat
Individuals have been labelled as being racists or trying to hijack the debate to boost their own agenda, or of rejecting the right of Indigenous Australians to justice and recognition they are entitled to. Or, they are accused of rejecting a vital step forward for Closing the Gap because it isn't everything they want to see, passing up getting some and ending up with none.
The danger in this approach is that it ignores the people who have genuine fears or concerns and missing the opportunity to assuage them or ignores the lived experience of those who have the most invested in the process and silences the voices of those the Voice is meant to allow to be heard.
And by lumping them in together, it fails to identify the legitimate movements that are gaining momentum and slowly eroding support for the Voice because what they are saying remains unchallenged on its detail when the government broadly dismisses the collective.
He that is proud eats up himself
This failure to acknowledge the validity of the views of a large chunk of Australia, many of whom are sincere and genuine in their desire to do what is best for the nation, risks alienating them and feeling that the government doesn’t care about what matters to them—something we saw in the pandemic could lead to very dangerous places.
By responding to those on the “No” side with patronising labels and condescending lectures that talk down to people as if they can’t be trusted to come to their own conclusions but should listen to those who know better, the government runs the risk of another Brexit. Many average voters felt that they were being told what they should think by a coastal and city elite, and that if they voted wrong, it was because they were racist or ignorant. Many people who had no strong opinion voted against Remain simply because they didn’t like being told what to do.
Sowing the seeds of their own destrcution
The “Yes” side runs the risk of alienating undecided voters through its smug and dismissive rhetoric, and its pervasive assumption that there is no other possible outcome than a “Yes” victory may lead to an arrogance and complacency that fails to respond to risks and threats before they start to eat away at their lead. Any sportsman knows that the surest path to defeat is to celebrate your win before the final scores are counted.
Whether you vote “Yes” or “No” on the Voice we should all try and make sure we have done everything we can to understand the issues and think about how we have arrived at our position and whether it is built on the right foundations. As long as we can honestly tell ourselves we have tried to make the decision we believe is right then we have made the right vote. Reading and understanding the Australian constitution before voting on changing it could be helpful. And most importantly, we need to make sure that we respect the right of all Australians to be heard in this referendum and uphold the foundation of a healthy democracy—the right of people to have different opinions and disagree without being made to feel theirs is less valid than anyone else.