The central theme of Peter Emerson's book is democratic decision-making, something he has passionately advocated since the 1980s. He has produced related books, a CD Rom and organised conferences using his preferred decision-making technique – the preferendum. In the 1980s he helped bring together people from the UUP, DUP, SDLP, Sinn Féin, Workers Party and Ulster Clubs to engage in debate and multi-option decision-making.
His new book questions the assumption that democracy equals majority rule. While minority rule was rightly rejected as undemocratic, majority rule is only marginally better. Peter's concern stems from his experiences in divided societies. Inherited wisdom suggests that a majority has the right to rule and needn't even consult the minority(s). This conventional view was overturned, to a limited extent, when the Good Friday Agreement made provision for key decisions to be taken through parallel consent or weighted majorities. Unfortunately, however, the most controversial of decisions – unity verses Union – requires only a 50 per cent plus one majority, a recipe for sectarian conflict and division or worse.
Unionist majoritarians have long asserted the primacy of Northern Ireland's majority while nationalist majoritarians insisted on the ascendancy of the islandís majority. When the wishes of either majority seemed to be flouted this legitimised armed struggle. For Emerson this illustrates the worst aspect of majoritarianism – its adversarial character that forces people into opposing camps in a zero sum game where winner takes all. Other nationalists accepted the right of the six-county majority to rule but some insisted that Northern Ireland was illegitimate because it violated the rights of the Irish majority. Unionists rejected the island majority and any attempt to impose its will on the island minority. Even in our post-agreement world this issue is to be decided through a majority vote based on a dichotomous choice for or against unity or Union.
Under this system, if Irish unity was achieved some unionists might become resigned to a 32 county state, quietly assimilate and disappear from view as many of the minority once did south of the border. Others would flee the country while still others might resist and/or promote a smaller re-partitioned Ulster.
Peter Emerson points out that majority, weighted majority or dual majority rule entails a vote resulting in a majority of the majority taking precedence, or, as in the case of Northern Ireland, a majority of the majority plus a majority of the minority. The minority of the majority together with the minority of the minority may be left with scraps.
The final apparent majority may represent only a minority of the people as notoriously happens under the Westminster first past the post electoral system. This frequently produces government based on a minority of voters who achieve a majority of seats due to a flawed electoral system.
Smaller parties are usually effectively sidelined or sometimes placed in positions of relative power while they hold a balance between two major parties.
Despite Emerson's deceptively innocuous approach, his is a truly revolutionary doctrine because it places decision making firmly in the collective hands of the people. It would no longer be easy to override their collective will.
But many people are apathetic, largely because majoritarianism has been so deeply engrained in their psyche, so they perceive politics to be a struggle for power and victory rather than as a means to organise collective social life.
Emerson and The De Borda Institute's way forward entails the use of the preferendum at all levels, but particularly in relation to contentious matters. This system measures support for upwards of three options, to be listed by decision-makers in order of preference. The resulting decisions are based on measured consensus or compromises that represent the most acceptable/tolerable options. The votes of minorities count in reaching the ultimate verdict.
On the question of Irish unity versus the Union, there is a variety of options including quasi-federal relationships within and between our islands. Many voters/deciders need to be made more aware of such options and about politics in general than at present, but assuming this positive, if unlikely, development, they would be given greater input into generating consensus or compromise.
Such a system would make decisions by the assembly and executive possible whereas the present system limits possibilities of moving forward creatively.
At present stalemate always threatens because majority decision-making lessens possibilities of consensus or compromise. The result can be secret deals that may flout the will of the people.
