Sir, – Liam Weeks ("Rule by referendum is not the best way to make decisions", Opinion & Analysis, June 2nd) suggests that "basic human rights" should not be subject to referendum, but offers no suggestions as to who should get to decide what constitutes basic human rights and how they should be enshrined into constitutional law, if not by referendum.
One alternative would be to insist that a certain group of people have unique insights into eternal truths on the matter. This is the opinion of the Catholic Church and of other religious hierarchies, as well as philosophers in the mould of Plato, who advocated that philosopher-kings should wield ultimate power.
Another would be the modern-day trend of lawyers and judges deciding on all such matters, which Dr Weeks is rightly critical of.
Are we to take it that Dr Weeks would follow Plato’s proposal, maybe including political science academics in his secular “Council of Guardians”?
Even so, there will be disagreements as even (or maybe especially) the greatest philosophers and political scientists have diverging views. For example, how would one argue that gay marriage is a basic human right but the right to life of an unborn child is not? Who is to adjudicate such disputes, and who is to select the panel which decides?
Assuming Dr Weeks does not believe he or others are in unique possession of eternal truths, the only alternative appears to be that such matters must be decided by the people as the sole source of legitimacy in a democratic system, whether this happens by referendum or by other democratic decision-making processes. – Yours, etc,
JONIVAR SKULLERUD,
Sandymount,
Dublin 4.