Portage and Main plebiscite pitch premature
IN the Late Middle Ages, when meat was scarce, some consumers found they’d been scammed when they purchased an unopened bag containing an animal. It was their understanding that the bag, which was known to them as a poke, contained a delicious suckling pig. But when they opened the poke, they found it actually contained a dog or cat, which were very common and much less desirable as a dinner dish.
The lesson of the pig in a poke could provide guidance, as two city councillors want Winnipeggers to vote in a plebiscite on whether to reopen Portage and Main to pedestrian traffic. They want the public to vote before knowing what’s in the bag.
Setting aside for the moment the bigger issue of plebiscites and referendums — forms of populism that can cause regrettable decisions when used rashly — the most immediate problem with asking Winnipeg voters about Portage and Main is they haven’t been given enough information to make an informed decision.
Councillors Jeff Browaty and Janice Lukes want to put the non-binding question on the ballot in the October civic election. City council will decide at its July meeting whether to let Mr. Browaty and Ms. Lukes have their way.
By October, however, the public won’t know important details of the project. What is the entirety of the proposed design? What above-ground work will be necessary to make it pedestrian-friendly? What are the plans to upgrade the underground concourse? What’s the expected final cost of the entire project?
Many of these questions will be answered by consultants chosen by the city in response to requests for proposals that were issued earlier this month, but the reports of the consultants who submit thewinning bid won’t be publicly available before the proposed October plebiscite.
Unless voters have completeinformation to informtheir decision, the plebiscite sought by Mr. Browaty and Ms. Lukes would be an exercise in ignorance.
While the principle of letting the public vote on political decisions might initially seem like an attractive form of power to the people, it is often misused. An example of a jurisdiction in which direct democracy has run amok is Switzerland, which has hosted nearly 600 referendums that led to binding decisions, such as a universal basic income, banning the Islamic towers atop mosques and the expulsion of foreigners convicted of minor offences.
Fortunately, Manitoba has been more judicious in its use of direct democracy. One hesitates to think of the consequences if the public had been allowed to decide in 1962 whether then-premier Duff Roblin should be allowed to spend the equivalent of $505 million in 2018 dollars to build a ditch around the city, or whether voters in the late 1980s had been allowed to block the vision of returning an industrial-ugly rail yard at the confluence of the Red and Assiniboine rivers into a lively hub of social activity which now attracts four million visitors a year.
With rare exceptions, decisions on big issues should be left to leaders who are elected on the basis of their campaign pledges.
For instance, Mayor Brian Bowman has made reopening the intersection to pedestrians one of his signature issues, both as a candidate and an elected official, and he is running for reelection.
One could fairly suggest Mr. Bowman’s pursuit of a second term could serve as the referendum his council colleagues are seeking.
Citizens who care deeply about the Portage and Main issue can make their views known on Oct. 24, when they enter the voting booth and choose Winnipeg’s next mayor.