TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 12 °C Sunday 19 May, 2013

Column: Politicians can’t fix Ireland – ordinary people must take the lead

The financial crisis was sparked by a broken system. If we’re going to fix this we can’t leave it up to politicians, write Bronagh Geraghty and John Hughes.

Bronagh Geraghty and John Hughes

THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE of the Irish financial crisis was a failure of governance facilitated by a dysfunctional political system. And while the cabinet scrambles to try and fix the crisis, the very structures which allowed this crisis to happen remain firmly in place.

In his recent book Renewing the Republic, President Michael D Higgins comments that in Ireland “parliamentary accountability has eroded to such a degree as to make parliament a charade.” There are insufficient checks and balances in the Irish Constitution to limit damages by a cabinet acting in pursuit of electoral advantage alone. Apart from voting at elections, it is virtually impossible for individual citizens to hold politicians (let alone public administrators) to account for poor or corrupt decisions.

Over the years Irish politicians proved themselves incapable of reforming the political system and unwilling to implement even the most straightforward procedural reforms. For instance in 1982 the right to vote in Seanad University Panel elections (presently restricted to NUI and TCD graduates) was extended to graduates of all Irish third level institutions in a national referendum. This solemn decision of the people was ignored and never legislated for, thereby disenfranchising thousands of graduates ever since.

The Irish Constitution adopted by the people in 1937 is the only serious revision of our political system implemented since the foundation of the State. At least thirty constitutional reviews and reports were published by the State since 1982 recommending modest changes to the Constitution. Although no fundamental changes were recommended, even modest changes were largely ignored by successive Cabinets.

In the Programme for Government published by the current Cabinet in February 2011 there are fourteen pages of planned reforms to the political system and reforms of public administration systems. However, one year later little has been put in place to implement planned reforms. If the politicians will not implement the necessary changes, then it’s time for citizens in this country to take the lead in transforming the Irish political system.

‘Politicians are too closely involved in the system to see its flaws’

In July 2010 the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution recommended a citizens’ assembly be appointed to draw up constitutional amendment proposals for reform of our electoral system. It stated that in other countries “the citizens’ assembly was seen as a mechanism that took the question of electoral reform out of the hands of the political parties, and removed any possibility of politically motivated bias that might affect the outcomes of the process.” The same conclusion can be drawn for reform of the entire Irish political system.

Oliver Moran, an IT engineer and the founder and chairperson of the Second Republic group, makes the point: “When I write a code, it will always be checked for flaws by another engineer who has not been involved. Politicians are too closely involved in the political system to see its flaws in a detached way or to objectively consider any solutions which might affect their power and privilege. We need to see how decisions are made and we need to be able to question and scrutinise decisions that may possibly be against the national interest.”

Citizens’ assemblies with only randomly appointed ordinary citizens as participants are ideally suited to initiating political reform. Deliberative democracy models such as citizens’ assemblies ensure deliberation on proposals is carried out by equal participants so that decisions are free from the usual distortions created by unequal political power, exceptional personal wealth or powerful lobby groups. A citizens’ assembly however has no executive power and cannot become a substitute parliament. Only voters in a referendum will have the power to choose or reject the assembly’s proposals.

Examples of citizens’ assemblies can be found in Canada, Iceland and the Netherlands. Second Republic have spoken to people involved directly in these assemblies and a common theme which emerged was the need to give ordinary citizens ownership of the process of reform. Other similar models exist in Latin America and the Philippines.

In their election manifestos of January 2011, all political parties promised formal structures to involve ordinary citizens in drafting reform proposals. The coalition government are presently planning a Constitutional Convention about which little is known. There is some indication to date that ordinary citizens will be a token minority and that the Convention will simply send a report to Cabinet, with no obligation for change.

‘We were struck by the frustration of many politicians with the system’

The political scientists’ project We the Citizens, which concluded in December 2011, brought the practice as well as the theory of citizens’ assemblies to Ireland in an inspiring way. Welcoming their final report, Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore said: “The evidence produced by We the Citizens is heartening, and provides valuable lessons for how we can improve our democracy in practical and meaningful ways.”

Since December 2010 Second Republic has been calling for the establishment of a clearly empowered Irish Citizens’ Assembly for Political Reform and issued a comprehensive proposal in October 2011.

This proposed assembly should be established by referendum, managed under the auspices of the President of Ireland and empowered to put its proposals directly to the people in a referendum. Rather than undermine the democratic mandate of the Dáil, a Citizens’ Assembly for Political Reform (or several) has the potential to revitalise the political system and make Dáil Éireann more democratic in the way it operates. Currently Second Republic is debating the idea of a series of legally empowered citizens’ assemblies which could be employed to carry out the mammoth task of drafting referendum proposals for political reform over several years.

Having met TDs and Senators in Leinster House recently to discuss the proposed Citizens’ Assembly for Political Reform, Second Republic were struck by the frustration of many politicians with aspects of the present political system.

Ultimately it is up to citizens to hold their governments accountable. We believe it has become necessary for ordinary citizens to attempt to kick-start the process of political reform by applying pressure from outside conventional political structures. Only by acting together in the face of apathy and cynicism can ordinary citizens ensure that there is sufficient incentive for politicians to make real political reform happen.

Bronagh Geraghty is on the national committee of Second Republic, an independent voluntary grassroots pressure group focused on political reform. John Hughes coordinated the writing of Second Republic’s comprehensive proposal Citizens’ Assembly for Political Reform, which was co-authored by seventeen people.

Column: We need a new politics – and here’s how it might work>

About the author:

Read next:

Comments (59 Comments)

  • It’s time for our president to speak to both houses and tell them we as a nation cannot be subjugated to this course of action being followed.
    I honestly don’t believe he thinks it’s the right course of action given his stance on various positions and causes in the past.
    If they won’t let him address the houses let him address the nation without their permission we elected him not the laughing boys and girls in Kildare street

    Reply
  • Excellent piece, lots of butter in that sandwich. Like Michael D said, we should elect the national leaders who make the decisions, not just the politicians who stand in our backyard and the back of the Dail fighting to be heard.

    Reply
  • Its only the Citizens can make it happen, Politicians want things as they are. Jobs for the boys culture, alive and well in Ireland. Even If we have a convention, will the new laws be brought in? No, only excuses and foot dragging. We have only one solution, a Revolution similar to the French one and it doesn’t have to be Violent!

    Reply
  • The actual problem is that the people elected and will always elect idiots who lie to them.

    Reply
    • Failure of governance; Yes.
      -Dysfunctional political system; Yes.
      -Insufficient checks & balances in Irelands constitution: Yes
      -Politicans can’t see the woods for the trees; Yes.
      -We need a citizens assembly; No

      We already have a citizens assembly called the Dail. Adding another layer of incompetence is not the solution. More snouts in troughs will not improve the lot of Irelands citizens. Having ten assemblies isn’t going to resolve this crisis.
      One step in the right direction is Direct Democracy.
      http://realrepublic.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=116&Itemid=235

      Reply
    • Andrew 19/02/12 #

      Long comment alert: and I have much more to say, too.

      In Egypt, 1.5 people to date have signed up to a ‘Google Moderator’ account titled ‘Egypt 2.0′. This free platform is handling thousands of suggestions, votes and comments on where the Egyptian people would like to see their country go in the future. http://goo.gl/T0FXn.

      I believe it’s possible to make the big changes so many of us want to see. We would hardly even have to step outside our door. We can create a movement in order to form a new democratic party, all entirely online, with the aim of building a much more democratic system of democracy – a party made in the image of how we want our country to be run. From the very beginning, everyone has a voice, let everyone have a vote and everyone contribute to proposals and decision-making. Let everyone help build the party’s constitution.

      We can start a movement that will create a new party as a revolutionary platform. Like a trojan horse sent in to unfuck our Government. We build it from the ground up, we make up its members, and then we elect it in to power, with a constitution and agenda we all create together.

      This is entirely possible now, it’s actually easy to do – similar things are happening elsewhere. We just need INTEREST to get a movement started. It just takes enthusiasm, volunteerism, creativity, cooperation and lots of people.

      We have the ability to crowdsource ideas, as with the world’s largest encyclopaedia, Wikipedia. It’s possible for us to use the such technologies (A MediaWiki, Google Moderator, etc.) to build a new party, with an entirely new constitution – from the ground up. Faster and easier than ever.
      Currently, Egypt’s revolutionaries are using Google Moderator to suggest new ideas for their future. This simple system allows anyone to make suggestions and propose ideas, which can be voted upon by others. These ideas are then displayed in order of the most popular.

      Google Moderator could then be used to decide on what we want. Using these systems, all freely available, we can begin to create a platform which in the very first place immediately creates the possibility of a new party. The party can be made up of anyone who wants to join and help us build its constitution. From members we can later elect representatives.

      We could have checks in place that the party, and government itself is always answerable to the public, via online systems. No more secret in-party politics or power struggles, because the party itself could be modelled in a more democratic, accountable way, one which would model the way we would like to see our Government run in the future. ie: more direct democracy. Easy, fast online voting for all members on any issue.

      Currently, the one truly democratic act in our democratic system, ie: choosing a representative, is a sham. You vote once every four years. If that person gets in to power, they may easily renege on the principals and promises they initially made (and which you based your vote upon). Whats more, these individuals often compromise in favour of the party’s positions, and there is no consequence.

      We currently have limited control over the constitutions of parties, it is undemocratic. A representative should be exactly that and only that. They should represent the electorate, not dictate to it. The promises and stanecs that a candidate makes in election can be binding, and should be.
      If they break this contract, they are in essence in breach of the power we give to them, and we should have the immediate power to take that power back easily and quickly. This is all doable today.

      Then there’s the issue of transparency. Without even starting on transparency within existing parties themselves, what factors form the decisions of our elected representatives? Who are their advisors, what do they advise and why? Who chose these civil servants, what are their principals?

      As it stands, the real experts behind our elected representatives are virtually unknown. They are not elected by the people. We do not hear what their positions are, or upon what they base those positions. This is inadequate, unnecessary and unacceptable in a true democracy in our modern age.
      We have the technology and every Irish citizen should be entitled to see the ins and outs of all correspondence, whether it’s a meeting or an email. Representatives should be required to explain their reasoning for decisions to the electorate. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW HOW DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE IN OUR NAMES. This is perfectly achievable today.

      We can create a new ‘crowdsourced’ party. Everything needed is already there, and the whole project could be done as a risk-free experiment. What do we have to lose, except our feelings of distrust at the status quo, or these feelings of powerlessness?

      To get something like this started wouldn’t take much at the beginning. To begin with all we would need is an account. I have just set one up, the link is below. It took me 5 minutes and that is all it took the person who created ‘Egypt 2.0′.

      The real thing a movement needs is interest and people. Lots of people. What if all it took was for each of us to spread this idea and believe in it? I have just set up a Google Moderator Page: http://goo.gl/mod/bzH8

      Reply
    • That rationale would suggest that the electorate are idiots?

      Reply
  • “virtually impossible for individual citizens to hold politicians (let alone public administrators) to account for poor or corrupt decisions.”

    Herein lies the crux of the problem – our continuity government – the public administrators. Included in brackets but should probably be well to the fore. Between voters and public admin our politicians need to be best endowed as charmers. There isn’t room for anything else – they have to kiss ass to get what they want from staff and they have to keep their voters happy too. How could they possibly find time to think outside the box, investigate peoples requests, research “facts”, question policies (let alone understand them!).

    How many heads have rolled in the public sector? TDs come and go, party loyalty and parish politics see to that but the people running the show just keep on rocking, take the file back when a minister leaves and hands it on to the next. Where in that does knowledge or experience enter the equation? Where in that does accountability fit in? What happens if admin don’t like the new order – they down tools and sulk that’s what.

    Reply
  • The politicians know how to fix the current problems. They just haven’t figured out how they will ever be able to get re-elected.

    Reply
  • Ultimately it is up to citizens to hold their governments accountable. We believe it has become necessary for ordinary citizens to attempt to kick-start the process of political reform by applying pressure from outside conventional political structures. Only by acting together in the face of apathy and cynicism can ordinary citizens ensure that there is sufficient incentive for politicians to make real political reform happen. I rest my case.

    Reply
  • 90% of comments here seem to suggest we should actually keep these guys in check, as if we should put up with half-arsed political parties just because they exist. I don’t think any of the available parties are good enough to stand term in the Dail, they’ll never change this place. Reform, change and new ideas are needed and the only way to get it is through revolution

    Reply
  • Apart from voting at elections, it is virtually impossible for individual citizens to hold politicians (let alone public administrators) to account for poor or corrupt decisions. Virtually Impossible?…. Apart from voting at elections? (as though voting at elections is some kind of civic anomaly). What irresponsible claprap. In 2007 the Irish people returned to power a Taoiseach who was under investigation by three different criminal enquiries, never mind his ten year love affair with neo-liberalism, i.e. the crippling of the Irish economy, or the gifting of Irelands Energy Resources (valued at 100′s of billions of Euro) to his buddies in the British Establishment. For this civic stupidity and crass irresponsibility, i.e. re-electing this jerk; you want to blame the Irish Constitution; it’s akin to the typical drunk, stupified beyond any awareness of his predicament, lashing out at the nearest target. (By the way, those of us who are awake know the real reason vested interests might wish to attack the Irish Constitution, and we are watching.)

    Reply
  • It does matter how you vote, it’s what you buy that sets you apart these days…. FG and FF are so similar why would think it makes any difference who you vote for?

    Reply
    • Conor,

      In Wales where there is a mixed member system like Scotland voters were surveyed by an electoral commission which found members thought of the members of the assembly elected from constituencies as the real representatives and thought the list seats were consolation prizes for those that could not get elected by the voters directly from the constituencies. That commission recommended a reform of the Welsh Electoral system to the PR STV. Similar complaints in Germany – those elected on lists want to go for the bigger prize of running for constituency seats and spend their time doing constituency work to get nominations. In British Columbia the Citizens Assembly called for change of the electoral system to PR STV

      The country where parlimentarians do the highest percentage of consituency work is guess where? Ireland? No Canada. Is Canada experiencing an economic financial crisis? No!

      In Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal – they have entirley different electoral systems to Ireland’s and guess what they have economic and financial crisis – so notion that our electoral system was to blame is bogus.

      We have no hope of not making the same mistakes again if we don’t take on board that it was the kind of capitalism we adopted 1997 to 2007 that caused our crisis and not the electoral system.

      Reply
    • And sorry that should read the voters in Wales looked upon the constituency reps as the real reps and those elected from lists as lessor parliamentarians (cause they didn’t have the same direct mandate).

      Reply
    • Joanna,

      You are indeed correct, the citizens’ assembly in British Columbia did recommend STV, so it would seem that they are not likely to recommend a less democratic system like FPTP as I gathered from your first comment that you feared. Nonetheless, the voters rejected this in favour of maintaining the existing system. It seems the citizens assembly isn’t that dangerous an entity at all!

      I don’t believe that anyone was trying to blame STV for the economic crisis in this country. There is no connection between electoral systems in democracies and electoral performance, correlation does not imply causation. It is more likely that tighter credit facilities and more prudent public finances aided performance in economies that weathered the recession.

      Whether or not STV is better liked than list or mixed member systems doesn’t mean that it is more democratic. It generally gives a seat bonus to the larger parties at the expense of smaller ones. This is why FG with 36% vote share at GE 2011 has 45% of the seats in the Dail and similarly, FF had a 41% vote share in 2007, yet came within a whisker of an overall majority!

      Reply
    • Conor,

      I have no difficulty with a Citizens Assembly nor a Constitutional Convention in themselves. Whether our economy was in trouble or not they would have merit. What I am disagreeing with is the notion that it was our political system, as opposed to the implimentation of right wing policies, that have caused our economic and financial crisis.

      Reply
    • Conor,

      A Constitutional Convention and or a Citizens Assembly have merit in themselves and I am not arguing with that. What I am disagreeing with is the argument that it was our political system that caused this. A majority of voters voted for a particular party, that had policies which they implemented over two terms of Government, and those policies were a big mistake. That’s the culprit – ideology of a particular kind implemented by a particular party in Government that got pretty big backing by an electorate that voted them into Government twice, despite the evidence at the time about developer led planning, tax breaks for the wealthy, light touch regulation, privatisation of health care etc. etc. So lets have the Citizens Assembly/Constitutional Convention on the basis of their own merits but let them not become a vehicle for blaming the wrong things for our economic/financial crisis.

      Reply
    • Joanna,

      The thumping defeat FF received in the last general election assures me that the Irish electorate are not confused as to the reasons behind the economic crash. I have every faith that the electorate would make an informed decision with regards electoral reform.

      On a side note, it is refreshing to see a Ðail representative actually engaging in debate on a public forum. If only others were willing to do the same.

      Reply
  • Hold up. The current political system has actually failed us – not in an abstract “failure to include me” kind of way, but in a “we either wrecked the country, or failed to prevent it” kind of way. That system is currently being tinkered with, but as it stands has been largely left intact.

    We have a system which repeatedly seen the politicians make choices which favour a small minority with political leverage (bond holders, commercial landlords, Western Rail Corridor), not exclusively, but certainly excessively. I am sick of the “bread tomorrow” platitudes that our politicians come out with, although I can’t blame them too much as it appears to work better than actually doing something.

    Where is the actual action?

    Where is the scheme that links the thousands of people currently on the dole with building skills with the chronically neglected existing stock of school buildings? Two days maintenance work on a school building in return for payment?

    Where is the scheme that makes the employers ability to identify suitable candidates for their jobs as smooth as possible (i.e. where is the light from Solas)?

    Why can’t a 110% tax be imposed on the commercial landlord holding upward only rent agreements?

    Why has nothing actually been shut down? We cut everything with a chainsaw and leave the following in place

    – County and City Councils that replicate the same services across more than 35 times.
    – The payment of in excess of €18,000 plus expenses to County Councillors who did it for free a few years ago.
    – Travel payments in excess of 59c per kilometre paid on presentation without a receipt
    – Overnight subsistence rates of €108 per night, paid on presentation without a receipt
    – TD’s money for turning up to work (I thought that is what their salary was for)

    We also need to sell off any asset that is not being used – I don’t buy the “family silver” argument for two reasons:

    1. If somebody needs a life saving operation then that is more important than owning a small bit of Are Lingus
    2. It is no good having silverware if there is no food on the table – and at the moment there is no food on the table

    Ireland needs to shrink the cost of living, indeed shrink all of its costs and begin building again, what you are paid is not nearly as important as what you can buy with it. The Government needs to at least temporarily withdraw from/and or mothball a lot of what it does in certain areas for a year or two until the costs meet the income. We might then learn that it is not enough to build a hospital ward or buy a bus, it take a comprehensive and sustainable income model over a 10 year period for it to be worth doing, not just the realisation that we have the price of the blocks.

    Reply
  • Mattie McGrath has an email address?? :)

    Reply
  • Joanna, work in political science demonstrates that list systems give more proportionate outcomes than the PR STV system that we use in Ireland. Indeed mix-member systems like those used in Scotland and Germany retain the personal element of STV and the proportionate outcomes of list PR systems. Surely this is more and not less democratic.

    Furthermore, the Dail is one of the weakest parliaments in Europe, with Britain only scoring worse in terms of accountability. The executive in Ireland and the UK is especially strong with little room for consensus approaches (though Dail committees have improved this somewhat). Opposition, and indeed backbench politicians have little or no policy influence at all. TDs must strictly adhere to party whips if they are to have any chance of promotion.

    It is this very system of limited accountability that allowed the last government to languish for so long. Dissenting TDs were threatened with the whip, it was not until there were major issues within cabinet that the government collapsed, despite numerous no-confidence motions.

    Finally, on the idea of citizens’ assemblies, the concept has worked rather well. In British Columbia, Canada, such an assembly was set up to deal with the issue of electoral reform. The participants, coming from a cross-section of society were briefed by experts in electoral systems on the pros and cons of each choice and based on this reached a consensus of an alternative system to propose to the electorate. The referendum did not pass, but the idea of putting democracy in the hands of the people succeeded in bringing politics closer to real people.

    Reply
    • Here here!

      Reply
    • See reply above!

      Reply
    • @ Conor

      But such things as list systems & political parties with internal hierarchical structures maintain another layer of centralised control. All of this contributes to the system we have now – essentially elected oligarchy for 4 years. With choice of oligarchy limited to the marginally nuanced differences of one source of wealth or another.

      Should we not actually get back to the fundamental idea of ‘representatives’ without all the other layers & interference?

      By this I mean elected representatives that have no ‘memberships’ or associations at all to which they are beholden. Surely our representatives should be at ‘arms length’ from any group or organisation seeking to sway their opinion toward a vested interest?

      Similarly, elected representatives should have no business ownership or senior position interests. Nor should they have significant wealth, to the extent that such wealth provides significant un-waged income.

      The reason for this is simple. The vast majority of citizens are (modest) wage earners & do not have significant income from investments or business interests. If we truly want ‘representative’ democracy, then elected politicians need to be ‘aligned’ with the majority in that most vital factor to all our lives – namely, where our ‘living’ comes from & at what level.

      Modern politics is little more than a gravy train of self interest and/or with influence peddled to the highest bidder. The rest is just PR spin to justify whatever policies line the representative’s pockets, either overtly or because their ‘main’ career is focused in a very narrow range of interests relative to the population at large. This may not be true of a minority, but as a minority they exert zero influence.

      Many vocations are obliged to accept terms & conditions vital to the integrity of their profession. Shift work is required for emergency service workers. Armed forces cannot ‘strike’ & must accept the inherent possibility of their loss of life.

      Corruption, with a big ‘C’ and a little ‘c’, has been shown to be the bain of politics & democracy, not just in Ireland, but everywhere. Should we not take even basic steps toward vocational conditions that could restrict the fundamental source of corrupting influence – the flow of money at a level above & beyond that which ordinary citizens will aquire? Merely ‘registering’ interests is laughable.

      I have no doubt whatever that there are intelligent & capable citizens who would happily take a career in politics & accept & see the logic that their aquisition of wealth be restricted to some ‘average’ level.

      The system at present probably tends to actively exclude those less concerned with actively seeking personal wealth. Without such wealth (or ‘party’ support) few have much chance of competing for elected office.

      In any case, what 2nd Republic are proposing is two things.

      One, that we have the thorough debate about how we govern ourselves.

      Two, that we have a robust process in place whereby what is decided from that debate will actually be enacted, following a national referendum vote.

      (I think some commenters have mistakenly assumed that 2nd Republic advocate some kind of ongoing citizens’ assembly. That’s not correct. What is proposed is a one-off, citizen led process.)

      It seems abundantly clear that the political incumbents, most especially those in senior party positions, do not want any such process.

      I think this demonstrates all the more reason why it should happen.

      Reply
  • Aontaím féin leis an moladh seo. Tá an córas briste agus ní féidir na polaiteoirí é a leigheas. Go n-éirí libh.

    Reply
  • well theyd make a better job anyway

    Reply
  • I hope Irish is off their agenda as it is a luxury and we can’t afford it.

    Reply
    • frank yet again no matter the subject of the article you find an excuse to attack the Irish language, I am sorry you are challenged and failed Irish, but get over it or move to england.

      Reply
    • Irish – What agenda – It behoves each one of us to value the ancient language of our native country and to cherish the culture- just like our PROUD neighbours in Wales & other parts of the world . But is it the will of the electorate ? ? ? . I would love to increase my ‘cupla focal’ but I’m too lazy to bother. With a little more practice and vocabulary we could greet each other in Gaelic .
      However the focus here is not just on the language it is on ‘Claiming our Future ‘ not just for ourselves but for generations to come – to review the Constitution , Political Reform and to work for a more Democratic system of Governing . We have seen the charade of things happening over a long number of years and whilst the electorate ‘kicked the ass’ of the last incumbents it really does appear that we are having more of the same and that , as previous contributors have said, the present incumbents are drunk by the tremendous power received from the electorate early 2011 but have FAILED to carry out the mandate given to them. THE POLITICAL SYSTEM MUST CHANGE AND URGENTLY . The ’2nd Republic.ie ‘ have produced Proposals
      which have been submitted to Parties in Oireachtas and which reflect the mood of the electorate. So lets all refer to those Proposals , study them and row in behind this Movement for change . The change(s) that will transform the Political System and let us have REAL Democracy of the people, for the people by the people.
      Anyone following the radical changes around the word will see that the OLD corrupt systems must be eliminated and the 99% must wrestle the power from the organisations that hoodwink governments. Have a look at the articles in Global research and on many other websites . I conclude with a quote from an article by William J Cox …….”As our rapidly-changing world spins into a new millennium, and the older forms of governments are using new forms of technology to become more repressive of and less responsive to their electors, isn’t it time for all of us to consider a modification in how we organize for the common good? “

      Reply
  • if voting could change anything it would be done away with, if voters want change,make change,they know whjch parties let them down,so what party is left to vote for?

    Reply
  • Being pro political reform is not saying politicians are “uncool”. Many politicians readily agree that they have failed miserably to bring in the necessary reforms. Noel Dempsey ex FF TD indicated as much at the end of his days in the Dáil.

    This article is really putting it up to us all to do something about politicians’ broken promises on reform.
    I agree with Second Republic’s analysis that without pressure from outside politics the system will continue on as before leaving us all in danger of seeing another politically facilitated national crisis within the next ten to twenty years.There is a need for a Political Refom League of interested organisations to act as a pressure group to kickstart the reform process. There must at least dozen or so reform proposals that all the various different groups could agree on and campaign together on. Where is the leadership to come from to achieve this?

    @Joanna Tuffy T.D.
    Why are there seventeen pages of political/public admin reforms in the Programme for government if all we need to fix this country is for politicians to adopt a different ideology?

    Political reform was high on the manifestoes/agendas of all political parties during the last general election campaign. Indeed in the February Exit Poll 2011 people listed betrayal by politicians and being let down by the system as a prime motive for voting in the general election.

    Your longstanding argument with the late Garret Fitzgerald and others about preserving the existing electoral system indicates a degree of entrenchment within the status quo. Your inability to appreciate some subtle changes (proposed by Conor Kirwan a few comments back ) which would prevent parties (Fianna Fail 2007) getting a disproportionate number of seats is worrying given that it seems to be a specialist area of yours.
    Electoral reform aside (I don’t think it is the most urgent) There are also many other areas which could be reformed.
    Backbenchers need empowerment and nationally focussed jobs to do in addition running clinics on local issues,
    Cabinet’s exclusive hold on governmental power needs to be ended,
    real accountability measures for those in public office need to be introduced,
    local government needs to be empowered,
    Dáil committees need to be fully empowered to inquire – but without infringing on individual citizens’ rights,
    Funding of political campaigns needs to be totally transparent,
    The party-whip system needs to be abolished
    Etc. etc.

    Reply
  • Manus,

    the majority of voters surveyed in last year’s general election say don’t touch our electoral system. That’s no surprise other systems would give them less say.

    Why so much in manifestos re political reform? To keep some commentators happy, especially the elitist ones, as a sop to radicalism when the real radicalism that needed is in relation to how we organise our economy and our society, and because reforms such as the abolition of the Seanad’suit those that would centralise power in less hands than it is already centralised while at the same time being seen to have a political scapegoat/sacrifice to sate those that want scalps.

    Reply
    • Joanna,

      I am curious to know how this survey was conducted, by whom and how aware were those surveyed of the other options available? The last point is particularly important as from my own experience with friends and family, as regular people with a passing interest in political matters, but not an deep one, their knowledge of electoral systems a something which does not affect them on a day-to-day basis is rather limited.

      I don’t exactly know why you say that other electoral systems give the voters less say. Do you mean that there is less clientelism on the part of TDs because they have to rely on their party and ideological affiliation more than their own personality! I hasten to add that a system like PR STV, which does not give very proportional outcomes actually respects the wishes of the voting public less than some of the alternatives on offer.

      I agree with you on the point of the Seanad, that its abolition would centralise power even futher than it already is in this country. However, successive governments have been loathe to use the Seanad effectively. Ministers with technical experience in vital areas such as the economy could be drawn from its ranks. But they sadly are not. Do you know how many cabinet ministers have been drawn from the Seanad since 1937? Only 2! The Seanad is derided the way it is by people because they see it as a waste of space, a mere talking shop for aspiring politicians, or a pasture for those who have lost seats to graze upon. Is it any wonder that the electorate feel totally unconnected to the Seanad? You either use it or you lose it!

      I agree that economic reforms and social reforms must take place in this country. This is imperative if we are to correct the mistakes of the past, and strive towards a better, more prosperous and fairer future. However I believe that political reform is also necessary. It is more is something which the whole country can be a part of, and not just “elitist” commentators. Are ideas of giving local governments more responsibility and increasing the accountability of the Dáil not somewhat radical, or at least bold in themselves.

      Reply
    • Conor,

      It was the Irish Election Survey carried out by Professor Michael Marsh of Trinity. Twice moves to abandon PR STV have been rejected by the Irish Electorate. Constituency work is a phenomenon prevalent all over the globe no matter what the electoral system. Constituency work (i.e. where you engage with voters just like I am doing here) is good for democracy.

      Reply
    • And Conor the research is that PR STV is very proportionate. If Labour gets 10 per cent of the vote than it gends to get 10 per cent of the seats. The mixed systems you mentioned earlier are based on single seats that are unproportionate that therefore need to be topped up by lists.. And the voters have no time for those elected on lists (see reference to survey of voters in Wales by me above) because they don’t elect them directly. Many politicians elected then try to build a reputation locally so that they can seek a nomination from a constituency which is perceived as having a better mandate from the people.

      Reply
    • Joanna,

      On the two occasions that referenda were held on the electoral system, the alternative offered was First Past The Post and not any other form of PR system. And no, PR STV is not highly proportionate! I will once again refer you to the seat bonuses achieved by the larger parties over the years, example, FF in 2002 with 41% of the votes and 48% of the seats – how is that proportionate? Smaller parties over the years have indeed fared quite badly, for example The Greens would have been entitled to 10 seats at the 2007 general election had a more proportionate system, and FG only about 57 seats after the 2011 general election – surely that would have put Labour in a stronger bargaining position with a few more cabinet seats?

      I asked also enquired about the knowledge of those surveyed by Prof. Michael Marsh with regards alternative electoral systems, but it would seem that such information was not sought and in my eyes the survey was flawed in its methodology. Ask your constituents about the merits of a mixed member system, versus a list system, PR STV, D’Hondt methods and FPTP and no doubt you’ll have your constituents scratching their heads!

      Reply
    • Conor,

      You think highly of your fellow voters!. Here is the link to the survey I mentioned:
      http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher/Election2011.php

      We the Citizenslooked in detail at this issue with citizens/voters they involved in their deliberations, including looking at alternative electoral systems, and again the citizens plumped for keeping PRSTV:
      http://www.wethecitizens.ie/

      PR STV is the most proportionate of electoral systems that let the voters vote directly for the individuals that elect them. That is borne out by empirical evidence and comparisons with election results in countries with different electoral systems to our. That is why Irish Political Scientist dont, in the main, unlike some elitist media commentators, tend to call for abandonment of PR STV. The do however call for other reforms, for e.g. those aimed at ensuring a more accurate electoral register, larger constituencies etc.

      Lists either produce politicians that do the same thing as our politicians (i.e. work hard in their local areas) or else they work to a different electorate – party hierarchies/leaderships. In Israeld for example a member of the Knesset recently resigned. One of his big complaints about the Israel pure PR list system was that it led to individual politicians not being held accountable as individuals at the ballot box by voters. Under lists of this kind Party leaders and Ministers get to be top of the list thereby cosseting them from being held accountable by the voters at election time for their own actions as individuals.

      Single seats disproportionately favour bigger parties, and that is the case whether it is first past the post or the Alternative Vote system.

      Mixed member systems combine the worst aspects of single seats and list systems in an attempt to bring about proportionality. As I said a Welsh Electoral Commission having surveyed Welsh voters found the voters found the list Members of the Assembly as the weakest link. The Commission recomended that in future elections to the Welsh Assembly be entirely by PR STV as in Ireland. The Citizens Assembly in Columbia called for PR STV. Scotland recently changed elections to Councils to PR STV. PR STV was introduced in Northern Ireland Assembly elections.

      Civic campaigns all over the worlds tend to come to the conclusion that the best electoral system is PR STV. Why is it so surprising to you that Irish voters feel the same?

      Reply
  • tua 20/02/12 #

    Nialllateshow Gordon Bernard Back of the Class – Even If you cant remember you could at least show some esteem. Part of joys of going abroad you learn the lingo from a inherited respect to others and understanding of the uniqueness makes for difference of your own. Ah well. There’s always package tours resorts, and at home you’d still be welcome in Connamara, Kerry, Donegal, Meath, Cork and parts of lots of other places.

    Bit confused as to what Ms Joanna Tuffy means?

    ‘We have no hope of not making the same mistakes again if we don’t take on board that it was the kind of capitalism we adopted 1997 to 2007 that caused our crisis and not the electoral system.’

    Unless I am missing or not read fully, I see too many contradictions and one very massive one. One or two are healthy but.. In order to facilitate ‘kind of capitalism’ adopted we needed to take politics into criminality on large scale. The only way to do this was to keep local political TD’s out of politics and focus them on being chosen or ‘elected’. They get paid, feed their voters fake favours (in any other profession would be just part of overall job description or the contract a. contract/manifesto b. governance) While the specially chosen crew got on with the structural building of ‘kind of capitalism adopted’ As mentioned by another contributer.,Conor Kirwan (present & past) Controlled with a bit of whipping and channeling descent back to local politics and ‘seats’ . Of course this required ensuring there were payments made, hush money. Hence all key people of importance in all sorts of authorities, media are obscenely paid for such a small population & country. Matching countries with populations of millions and millions. To put it another way. Its so obvious and so blatant it beggars belief . That now I gather a whole new pageant is constructing around it. Being redefined as something other, some pretend global review. What Canada did or Spain did is not ever going to be same. Human but different. What they are doing on the stage can only be as a diversion. So as I have no interest in either being a spectator nor a watcher of the characters or plot. I’ll leave the flounce and tapes, the sequences and fluff to amalgamate from the criminal made towers of overpaid, under performing in political and governance chairs. But granted lots and lots of fuss, fumble, bellowing and meowing is ever present, that’s when on rare occasions TD’s Ministers show up to sit in the chairs elected for! Or are called to provide tongue in cheek explanations for obvious criminal occurrences.

    That gotten away, I believe No amount of new politics or new democracy is going to emerge rise or even sniff from existing political systems. It’s bad maths, bad science, bad instinct, bad everything. As Lucinda and Enda prove time again its not about one doing ones best. Or about questioning if one is the best one for such important role. Or about trying to be ‘Labour’ in a corporate led government. Its about the towers and the climb and the rewards and not letting down your hair for others to climb up or paying any much attention to the ground below. Too much time wasted on this as is. We need to move on. Its will be instinctive and it will happen. As the alternative is unthinkable.

    Reply
  • The choice on the page is Donkey A, Donkey B Donkey C etc etc, in the end you just end up with a Donkey..

    Why not introduce a truth charter to politics or am I just delusional for suggesting such a thing as Politics is the art of speaking without the whole truth (knowingly) just to win.

    What about the Truth Party .. would there be any member or would it be too straight to fit into a crooked space?

    Reply
  • all we need is honest people in the dail not self serving crooks

    Reply
  • “Apart from voting at elections, it is virtually impossible for individual citizens to hold politicians (let alone public administrators) to account for poor or corrupt decisions.”

    But isn’t that the most fundamental way of holding politicians to account – i.e. as named individuals at the ballot box. The irony is that scapegoating our political system, as opposed to political ideas and ideology, for our financial crisis, may lead to proposals by a citizens assembly/constitutional convention to take away that power from the voters and hand it over instead to party leaders via list systems or other less democratic electoral systems than PR STV.

    Reply
    • See reply below.

      Reply
    • In theory that is the way it is supposed to work. And like all theories, the reality is different. When the choice to elect a credible alternative is severely limited then the electorate will alway re-elect the devil they know. Cowen and FF we’re punished at the ballot box last year, by the electorate voting FG/Lab. One bunch of muppets replaced by the crowd from Fraggle Rock?
      We need an alternative. We need a change of governance. I don’t know what the answer is but I’m willing to listen/read to any proposals and go from there ….

      Reply
    • Your constituents voted for an individual who claimed to be ‘Labour’, and yet they ended up with a FG mouthpiece instead. How is that fair?

      Reply
  • Entire article comes from the “politicians aren’t cool” school.

    Reply

Add New Comment