Imagine if, following Thursday's vote in the UK election, the BBC had conducted its post-election coverage around the issue of why the Conservatives had lost. Imagine if, instead of looking at the positive reasons people had for voting Labour, the media, with one voice, persisted in asking: what has gone wrong?
This is pretty much what happened in this State last week following the shock rejection of the Treaty of Nice. Skipping from radio to television on Friday afternoon, one encountered, again and again, the same advocates of the rejected Yes argument being invited by journalists to say what had gone wrong or how the situation might be rescued.
Politicians from all sides of the spectrum were invited to say whom they thought should be held responsible and most, not surprisingly, were prepared to oblige.
Various luminaries blamed the Referendum Commission, the low turnout, Government lethargy and misinformation by the No side. The more moderate voices spoke of acknowledging the concerns of the electorate or providing voters with reassurance before putting the treaty to a second referendum. Some 90 per cent of the weekend newspaper coverage took the same line.
Nobody seemed to think there was anything odd about this. Even most advocates of a No vote seemed happy to go along, although one or two members of the No lobby had the bad manners to say that what was being denigrated was the verdict of a sovereign people.
It seems we have so instinctively come to expect journalism to be biased in these matters that this bias, even at a moment of historic democratic clarity, remains invisible.
This is informative about the nature of our democracy. Proponents of the so-called European ideal have always insisted that their objective is democratic, whereas opponents have questioned this. The churlish, ill-tempered response of many on the Yes side to the democratically expressed wishes of the electorate betrayed the true extent of their enthusiasm for universal suffrage. I have never heard the Euro-bullies complaining about low turnouts when the results were to their liking.
More fascinating is why the media feel the need to see common cause with one side of what should be an entirely open argument. It has ever been thus. Indeed, the one-sidedness of the media was in the past so acute that it was necessary for those who opposed the European project to undertake costly legal proceedings in an attempt to achieve even a modicum of media balance in relation to European affairs.
Prior to these actions, the media - in particular the broadcast media - approached issues relating to the EU as though opposition, at any level or for any reason, was indistinguishable from insanity. The language in which the issues of European expansionism was explored betrayed a sinister tendentiousness, which reduced the debate to a meaningless ritual between those who were obviously right and those who were clearly wrong.
There is an obvious explanation for last week's result: that, following a series of court decisions binding upon the media, the public has recently, for the first time, had access to reasonably balanced coverage of EU matters, and has thus been able to make informed decisions. This, curiously, is not a perspective you often hear canvassed in the media.
It is important to look at what has emerged from this referendum, not just its result but the lessons to be learned concerning the nature of our democracy.
It is clear that other than being a nuisance and an embarrassment, last week's decision of the electorate has no meaning for those who run and comment on our political affairs. The voters have given the wrong answer and they must be taken aside, given a tough talking to and asked to reconsider.
The possibility that the electorate's decision might be final, irrevocable or based on sound reasoning and reflection has not been given a moment's thought by practically anyone in the political establishment or media.
This tells us something startling about what we consider to be our capacity for free democratic debate: there is no such thing. Dissenting views are tolerated in Irish society, not as equal contributions but as exercises in error which have a number of functions within a system designed to achieve precisely that which powerful interests seek to bring about. It is vital that a society purporting to be democratic has about it the appearance of open and free discussion, or else people might begin to believe they live in a totalitarian state. However, it is equally important that dissenting views be seen and understood to be precisely what they are: which is to say wrong.
In this society you are entitled to believe whatever you wish just so long as, once it emerges as contrary to the views of those who matter, you are prepared to concede that it is incorrect. You indicate such a willingness by being prepared to engage in a pantomime-style debate in which you hold a placard above your head which informs viewers, listeners or readers that you are an eejit, a troublemaker or a madman.
The purpose of tolerating dissent is to demonstrate the consequences of error while illustrating the tolerance of those who know and love the truth. In this way the truth is affirmed all the more.
jwaters@irish-times.ie