I've heard many people saying that the Voice will be "just" symbolic, or, as others have put it, tokenistic. They argue that, for the risk it presents, there will be very little real change that comes out of it. Now not being a constitutional lawyer nor an Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander, I can’t say whether the Voice will work to deliver real outcomes. I would encourage you to read from people more informed on that issue than me. What I do feel I can contribute to this debate however is to trash the delusion that "symbolic = meaningless" and explain why I'm voting yes.
Symbols are every bit as real as the physical world. They are the most important things in our human experience. This is because symbols aren't just meaningless shapes and signs, but tools which we use to make sense of abstract ideas beyond our comprehension. A golden ring symbolises a commitment to lifelong love. A $50 note is nothing more than a worthless piece of plastic, but it has value because it's a symbol we all believe in. On our flag, the Union Jack, Southern Cross and Federation Star symbolise the history, beliefs, geography and political structure of our country, telling us who we are as a people.
Very complicated stuff, shown through very simple symbols. Reality is too hard for us to understand on our own, so we have to rely on symbols to help us. Without symbols we wouldn't be able to tell each other how we felt, we wouldn't know where and to what country we belonged and we wouldn't know what we believed in. Above all, symbols tell us who we are.
So, with the Voice being a symbol and symbols being important, the logical next question is: what does the Voice symbolise? It’s a commitment. A commitment to change the course of our country's history by starting to listen. The Voice symbolises a recognition that the people who were here first have been given a harder lot than they deserve and that we should work together to do something about it.
It's undeniable that Indigenous Australians have been badly treated by history, which has placed them in a position where they, on average, die eight years earlier than the rest of Australians, where they're the most incarcerated group on earth, where they suffer third-world literacy rates and third-world incomes. A Voice would commit us to listen to those facing the disadvantages themselves. To hear their clear, consistent and politically-independent input so that we might build better solutions to these problems together.
This is what a Yes vote will symbolise because it's what we've been asked to do, both through the Uluru Statement from the Heart (be sure to read it if you haven't yet) and from our country's Indigenous peoples, who overwhelmingly support establishing the Voice. A Yes won’t divide; it will make us more united. As the Statement says, it seeks to build 'a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood'. It will make us more Australian.
On the other hand, a No vote symbolises a rejection. It will go down in history as yet another moment in which we decided that the most disadvantaged didn't deserve to be uplifted in order to overcome unfair treatment in the past. That's all it will be remembered for. History will forget the reasons for voting no just as it's forgotten all the other excuses for the failures of past policies.
I highly doubt there are many people who disagree with the commitments that a Yes vote will symbolise. A lot of people who I like very much – both in my personal life and in politics – will be voting no, and I respect their opinions just as I respect them. But we're at a two-way intersection. We can either vote to change track or to make another denial and stay on the current trajectory of a horrible status quo. There's no third option. I believe that we should create a powerful symbol to show our commitment to listening to those less fortunate. The risks of not taking this opportunity are too high.
Comments