Does Brexit spell the end of referendums? The issue flared up on CBC's The National last week when Mel Cappe, a former head of the federal public service, declared that issues like Brexit are just too complex for ordinary citizens. There is a place for this kind of discussion, he said: Parliament. I agree that David Cameron made a disastrous judgement call, and I'm no fan of referendums, but Cappe's claim mustn't go unchallenged. Not just because it's patronizing, but because he is only saying out loud what so many other people are whispering: the lesson of Brexit is that those who know better must lead. This couldn't be more wrong. The debate between elitism and populism has a long history. Here in Canada, it's what brought Preston Manning's Reform Party to Ottawa in '93. Reformers were scandalized by Ottawa's elitist culture and determined to change things. Manning was a classic prairie populist. Government needs the common wisdom of the common man, he declared. And referendums were a critical tool for giving the common man a voice. The flaw in Manning's "direct democracy" is well known—and it's not that common folk are too simple to make important decisions. Parliament, after all, is composed of such people. Rather, it's that populism glorifies raw emotion and referendums allow for an unfiltered expression of it. The belief that ordinary people are guided by some kind of common wisdom has been disproved over and over again—often at dreadful cost. The real promise of democracy has always been that decision-making would be preceded by genuine debate. For the founders of modern democracy, debate was not the staged exercise we see in clubs on university campuses. There you get assigned a position, either for or against a view, and the goal is to stand your ground and defeat your opponent. The whole thing is an exercise in tactics. Early democrats had a very different view. For them, debate was a reasoned exchange of ideas. The goal was not to beat your opponent, but to win him/her over. A highly skilled debater could advance the discussion by incorporating elements of an opponent's views in insightful ways. For this, the participants had to be open to evidence and alternatives. Unfortunately, partisan politics has followed the model of the university campus. It is usually anything but deliberative. Too often it is a cauldron of willful ignorance, subterfuge and posturing, aimed at crushing an opponent. As an Ottawa veteran, Cappe knows this all too well, so when he suggests that Parliament is the answer to populism, it is hard not to see this as disingenuous. More likely, he is proposing that these decisions be made by Cabinet, guided by a professional, non-partisan public service. The problem, of course, is that this is exactly what produced Reform and Brexit. Cappe is right about one thing, however. He notes that globalization has brought a massive increase in interdependence. Today, major issues like climate change, pipelines or international trade involve legions of organizations, reams of rules and regulations, huge amounts of data, and communications networks that stretch around the globe. As a result, every decision gets linked to hundreds of other ones—and that is what citizens don't get. They still think in silos where the only thing that matters is the issue that affects them. The way to fix this is not by cutting them out of the discussion and returning to the days when policymaking involved a much cozier relationship between cabinet and expert advisers from the public service. Those days are gone forever. The real lesson of Brexit is that in this new globalized environment, citizens need to feel they have a meaningful voice in these decisions; and that calls for some changes in how our democracy works, starting with two critical steps. First, we must get beyond the old win/lose model of debate. Here Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's recent willingness to compromise on the electoral reform committee and to withdraw Motion 6 show promising signs of a different kind of leadership. The Senate may also be a beacon of hope. If senators can organize themselves around issues instead of parties, thoughtful and informed discussion may become the norm. This, in turn, could set a new standard for public debate that would challenge and, hopefully, inspire the Commons and citizens alike. Second, we need to make public consultations more meaningful by making them more deliberative. Much like the Senate, Canadians' real contribution to governance should come from helping to shape the debate around decision-making, not from vying with government for control over it. Real deliberation, however, calls for new and more varied kinds of engagement processes, ranging from facilitated town halls to citizens assemblies. And, yes, even referendums may be necessary from time to time—but supported by deliberative forums. New digital tools vastly enhance the possibilities. Of course, some people will rail about an excess of consultation: "We're talking ourselves to death," they will cry. But simply yelling at governments to "make some hard decisions" badly misreads the situation. In this highly interconnected environment, it is increasingly difficult for governments just to make a decision on a big issue. There are too many important players who can derail it. The Federal Court of Appeal's decision this week to overturn the Harper government's approval of the Northern Gateway Pipeline shows exactly where old-style, top-down governance leads. On complex issues, the way to get the needed support is through a process that builds agreement. Let me be clear, however: this doesn't mean that every group should be at the table or that every decision requires consultation. It means that democratic governance must now be viewed as a three-legged stool, with Cabinet/the public service, Parliament, and the public all playing a role, as required. Some people won't like this a bit, but we'd better learn to make it work. Brexit is just a glimpse of the alternative. Elitism, Mr. Cappe, begets populism.   The Passing of Mike Robinson I'd like to take a moment to express my sadness at the passing of Liberal organizer and advisor, Mike Robinson, a fine man and a fine Canadian. His contribution to politics and government has made us all a little better. My deepest sympathy goes out to his lovely wife, ML, and their children.   Dr. Don Lenihan is Senior Associate, Policy and Engagement, at Canada 2020, Canada's leading, independent progressive think-tank. Don is an internationally recognized expert on democracy and Open Government. Most recently, he served as the Government of Ontario's principal advisor on its Open Dialogue initiative. The views expressed here are those of the columnist alone. Don can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan