It is natural to ask: Is there a viable way forward in the wake of the failed referendum?

The question is, however, somewhat naïve on at least two counts. Not only is there more than one way forward, but there is already a multiplicity of ongoing projects aimed at addressing injustice, inequity and reconciliation.

Be that as it may, with both current and future endeavors it is prudent to be cognizant of the lessons to be learnt from the referendum, in order to maximize the chances of success and minimize the chances of yet more disappointment.

Previous essays in this series suggest the following guidelines for future action:–

• Have realistic expectations.
• Avoid facile interpretations of events.
• Ensure objectives are well-considered, practically achievable and clearly enunciated.
• Take cognizance of the likely effect of an action on the mind of the public.
• Be aware that rational argument is not enough: one must also appeal to people’s emotions.
• Mitigate the influence of dissenters from within your own ranks.
• Recognize that political backtracking is an ever-present threat.
• Distance campaigns from the surrounding political fray.
• Find non-legislative ways of achieving goals.
• Bear in mind that Government is not the only channel for change.
• Remember that “Yes” voters formed a substantial minority.
• Choose your allies carefully.
• Try to avoid being dependent on the good offices and protocols of organizations other than your own.
• Plan for failure — psychologically and strategically.

Most of these precepts will no doubt appear obvious and hardly worth mentioning, yet in one way or another all of them failed to be observed in the lead-up to the referendum and/or its aftermath. This is not to say that, if all of them had been observed, the referendum would have passed. Indeed, it is quite likely that rigorous adherence to these guidelines would have stopped the Voice (in the form proposed) in its tracks, long before any referendum campaign could get under way. In any event, observing the above principles should go a long way towards preventing the sort of debacle we saw with the referendum. We would do well not to make the same mistakes again.

Straightforward though my guidelines may appear, I do not pretend that implementing them will necessarily be easy. Ingenuity and resolve will no doubt be called for.

Each of the items in the above list could be expanded upon at length, but here I will just enlarge a little on the subject of choosing one’s allies carefully. Some reasons for this are:–

1. Their agenda is unlikely to be exactly the same as yours.
2. You may just be a pawn in their own covert strategy.
3. They may not be as competent as you think.
4. They may not deliver on their promises.
5. In the event of failure, they may just desert you and offer you no further support. In the worst cases, they may absolve themselves of all responsibility for the failure and place all the blame on you; this in turn can have its own set of unpalatable consequences.

Again, this all seems fairly obvious, but it should not dissuade us from scrupulous appraisal of possible allies, as long as these potential pitfalls are borne in mind.

Despite the uncanny resemblance of almost all my suggested guidelines to Laws of Nature, they are not meant to be adhered to unswervingly. They should not preclude what might otherwise be judicious and fruitful courses of action. But they should provide a touchstone of shrewd planning in the face of seductive but ultimately disappointing pathways. Caveat actor!