Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Publicchoice Brexit
Publicchoice Brexit
Introduction
The rather important topic with the rise of populism has been that of the relationship of
the deliberative with the representative democracy. Alternatively, between demagogy and
plebiscitary support. The topic as old as political thought, starting with Xenophon, Plato, and
Aristotle (Sen reports on similar themes in early Indian political thought, but I know nothing
about that).
The way to approach this topic is that of the public choice theory. Here is an essayistic
account of the theory and of the topic on the example of Brexit. The query is this: How could
have such an issue like the Irish border post-Brexit been so utterly disregarded in the public
debate preceding the referendum?
Agora
Brexit was deliberated in the public before the vote. Is there a difference between
trading votes and trading opinions? The difference is in the motivation and consistency.
The motivation in the political market are the interests of the participants. Negotiations
over the terms of trade of votes or issues lead to consent. The key book on this, with all its
flaws, is by Buchanan and Tullock, Calculus of Consent. The idea is to find a mechanism to
eliminate or minimise coercion and the associated rent-seeking and require consent. Political
market is the answer.
Relying on interests and political trade also minimises the information requirements a
la Hayek. In addition, one can solicit the support of expert knowledge to instrumentalise the
interests a la Weber.
In the public square, arguments are exchanged rather than votes. The arguments are to
support opinions rather than knowledge, so consistency is not required, persuasiveness is. In
addition, information requirements may be heavy, so emphasis on the ends rather than on the
means may be one way for an average member of the public to minimise the investment needed
to have an informed opinion. That task falls on experts.
So, intrinsically, in the public square, the debate tends to be between demagogues and
experts, between those who emphasize the ends, the desirable, and those who point out the
needed means, the feasible.
In addition, the demagogues are not constrained by the requirement of consistency
while the experts are. This is really the Socratic argument – the demagogue is happy to accept
the premises and reject the conclusion or even more often advance a conclusion and then search
for premises. Or, to loud the ends and dismiss the concerns over the lack of means or
alternatively to argue that with power (e.g. of the majority vote), everything is possible.
I.e. laud Brexit and reject that there is the Irish border problem or propagate Brexit and
then search for solutions to the Irish border problem.