Sir, - In 1973, Northern Ireland held a border poll. The unionists voted, the nationalists abstained, 97 per cent were in favour, and though designed "to take the Border out of politics", that vote served only to provoke more division.
In 1991, Croatia voted on independence. The Catholic Slavs (Croats) were 93 per cent in favour, the Orthodox Slavs (Serbs) boycotted. In an effort to preempt this poll, the latter held their own referendum on staying in Yugoslavia, and 90 per cent said "yes". Croatia was soon at war.
In 1992, Bosnia held its "this" or "that" referendum, despite having a 40 per cent Muslim, 30 per cent Orthodox and 20 per cent Catholic mix, with no one having an overall majority. The Muslims and Catholics joined forces, the Orthodox boycotted, 99 per cent voted in favour. Within days, Bosnia too was at war.
In 1991 again, Kosovo voted as well. The Albanians were 99 per cent in favour. The Serbs abstained. That poll was ignored. In 1999, however, the "international community" insisted on a referendum, so the KLA signed, Milosevic did not. NATO's bombs followed. Russia then re-negotiated the "agreement", a referendum was no longer necessary, and he signed after all.
In summary, we may quote Oslobodjenje, Sarajevo's now legendary newspaper: "All the wars in the former Yugoslavia started with a referendum". In all of these polls, those who might otherwise have wanted to vote for compromise - the peaceful, the progressive and the "ethnically unclean" - were, in effect, disenfranchised; as in war, they were forced to take sides.
Yet still we blunder on. The East (Catholic) Timorese have voted to be independent of the West (Muslim) Timorese. The first result was more horrific violence. The second is that the peoples of Aceh and Ambon are now claiming their right to self-determination. Will other referendums lead to further violence? Is it any wonder that some are already referring to Indonesia as "Asia's Yugoslavia"?
It goes without saying that I do not condone the appalling atrocities committed by some of the Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia and Albania; in similar fashion, I regard Indonesia's invasion of 1975 and the subsequent genocide perpetrated on the East Timorese as utterly abhorrent. But nor do I condone the use of the simple, for-or-against referendum. If the international community is to continue to say that every people has the right to self-determination, it must surely ask two questions: firstly, what is "a people", and can it be defined by a religious difference, a real or imagined ethnic divide, some artificial border inherited from history, or a geographical phenomenon like the absence (as with an island like Ireland) or presence (as in an archipelago like Indonesia) of water?
Secondly, can "a people' determine itself on the basis of only a majority of itself? Can such two-option voting really help Kashmir, The Sudan, Quebec (which has already had two referendums), or Northern Ireland (where the Belfast Agreement says we too must have a "never-end-um")? Is it not time to move to multi-option voting? Newfoundland and Puerto Rico held multi-option votes on their constitutions; Sweden held one on nuclear power, New Zealand one on electoral reform. The record so far is held by Guam, which had a six-option poll. They were all successful. Maybe Ireland too should use such a methodology on the abortion question. - Yours, etc.,
P. J. Emerson, The de Borda Institute, Ballysillan Road, Belfast 14.