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: 11 °C Saturday 18 May, 2013

Column: What kind of Constitutional Convention do you want?

The upcoming exploration of what reforms should be made to the Irish Constitution is a good time for us to make sure socio-economic rights and equality are set in stone for the future.

Colin Harvey

LAST WEEK, A poll conducted by Red C Express on behalf of Amnesty International found that 78 per cent of those surveyed believe the Constitution should be amended to include rights to health and housing.

The Government has said that a Constitutional Convention will examine possible changes to the Irish Constitution which will consider reform in many areas of Irish life, including to the electoral system, the clause on women in the home and more. The Convention is to be made up of 100 members – 66 of which will be citizens, 33 of which will be political representatives and one chairperson.

Writing for TheJournal.ie, Professor Colin Harvey, of the School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast, and a former member of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, asks that the Convention provide a space for conversation about many issues, including human rights.

WHAT DO WE want from the Constitutional Convention? That was the timely question raised at a recent event organised by Amnesty International. The mood was plain. Even in these difficult days, an opportunity exists to open up space for a conversation that embraces many voices, and to seize the constitutional moment for the better protection of human rights in Ireland. What sort of Constitutional Convention do you want?

There is little doubt that we are living in a time of transition. As our island reflects on the ‘decade of commemorations’ – and the lessons of our history – the possibilities for change also emerge. The transformation in Northern Ireland is work in progress. But the political advances are notable; in a troubled world our process has proven resilient.

Does it not demonstrate that what once seemed unthinkable can be attained? For all the flaws, compromises and ongoing challenges, it is suggestive of the incremental breaking of old patterns. An opportunity to be at ease with each other, and discuss the kind of shared society we desire?

“Debating how the Irish Constitution might better reflect human rights values seems appropriate and necessary”

The room thus opens for a thoughtful constitutional dialogue. Is it a luxury in these economic times? Not so. Implement existing guarantees effectively, yes. But let’s not waste the chance presented to send a signal to all on this island, to the world, and to future generations, that Ireland seeks a principled fresh start. Debating how the Irish Constitution might better reflect human rights values seems appropriate and necessary in this context. The complexity of the mature and serious discussions that must be had should not be underestimated. But there is evident worry that a narrowing of the Constitutional Convention is underway, with the risk of eroding the genuine potential for imaginative change. The energy, cost and effort required will give pause for thought.

All the more reason to make this a process we can be proud of and one worthy of determined participation.

The Government’s proposals sketch the basis of establishment, the topics for consideration, as well as working methods and composition, among other things.

The need for clarity and focus is understandable and the Constitution has, of course, been reviewed before. The Report of the Constitution Review Group 1996 contained extensive analysis and recommendations for reform. In seeking to create a limited process there is a danger that the ambition for a new and inclusive conversation is neglected, and the potential to secure tangible ownership is lost.

“It is a basic point, but retains its force: equality should be the foundation of any republican constitution.”

If we are serious, what might we then be talking about? Many subjects could be mentioned, but two appear pressing: socio-economic rights and equality. Is it now time to advance more robust and explicit constitutional recognition of rights which have a practical meaning to many? Rights to healthcare, to adequate housing, to an adequate standard of living. These are among the basic rights intrinsic to human dignity and to a secure existence. Can we have, as part of the Constitutional Convention, the debate?

It is a basic point, but retains its force: equality should be the foundation of any republican constitution. Yet there is unambiguous scope for better reflection of a strengthened constitutional commitment. Much more could be said. The ideas are there. Let’s have the debate.

Amnesty International’s candle seems an apt symbol. There is much darkness to curse. But it remains better to keep lighting that candle. Formidable reasons exist to lapse into despair, to lose faith in the merits of engagement in the public sphere, and even in our collective capacity to achieve change. We should resist the temptation. We are in a transformative constitutional moment, and a time of local and global transitions.

Constitutions embody much that is mundane about the structures of a state. They also capture the hopes, aspirations and values of a country. The Constitutional Convention presents a chance to engage with each other about the Ireland we want to live in.

It should be our legacy for generations to come. It is time for a new constitutional beginning. Why live to regret a missed chance to present an enduring gift to a new Ireland that knows that the better protection of human rights is a definitive rebuke to a shameful past?

What sort of Constitutional Convention do you want?

Read next:

Comments (53 Comments)

  • One with accountable politicians

    Reply
  • Secularize the constitution, separate church and state.

    Reply
  • What we need is a right in the constitution for the electorate to directly force a vote on policy matters, on demand, outside of the General Election route. If we’ve learnt one thing in the past few years, it’s that not having a leash on those in office is desperately damaging to us in the long term. Several countries have a mechanism by which votes can be forced either as motions in parliment (as in the UK) or as referenda, on production of a petition of a suitable percentage of the electorate. There is no reason we can’t have such a mechanism here and it could act as a means for ordinary people to affect national policy directly – a means they do not have at the moment (our normal democratic process allows us to select representatives, but once elected, we have no means by which to ensure they vote in the way that we wanted them to when we voted them in, so we basicly have no say in how our country is run when push comes to shove).

    Reply
    • The only problem with your proposed true democracy is that as “ordinary people”, we have consistently shown ourselves to be just as idiotic and short-sighted as our politicians.
      Even the most hard-of-thinking of politicians is at least partially literate, whereas there is no minimum requirment to vote, other than the ability to place an “x” with a pen.

      Reply
    • mart_n 23/04/12 #

      Jim, why do you think that is? It’s not some genetically predisposed thing, like. People feel totally disconnected from political matters in this country, and the only way to make them engage with and afford it more thought is to include them in a more direct and more meaningful way in everyday politics and policy decisions. As long as the electorate are seen as ‘politically illiterate’ then it will in fact be the case.

      Be the change you want to see and all that! Look at how well the Swiss model of direct democracy works. Wouldn’t we be better off aiming for that high, than just shrugging in agreement with the notion that we as a people can’t be trusted to make tough decisions?

      Reply
    • @mart, I applaud your sentiment, I’m just skeptical how it would stand up in practice.
      In this scenario, by definition, it becomes impossible to push through legislation that is not populist.
      I’m inclined to believe that voters typically gravitate towards personal interest over policies that benefit the country as a whole.

      Reply
    • mart_n 23/04/12 #

      “I’m inclined to believe that voters typically gravitate towards personal interest over policies that benefit the country as a whole.”

      This is true, and it’s the reason that treaties like the upcoming one have such a hard time in being passed. If you don’t give people a say on the specifics, they’ll use any other means available to stick it to you. I reckon that the majority of No votes in the Fiscal Treaty will come from those who are simply dissatisfied with the current government, or at least one of its policies. If you give people the opportunity to have a say in the more menial parts of political decision making; they’ll have less reason to try and scupper plans for larger things (the fiscal treaty won’t have that great an impact on anyone, and yet just you wait and see how many people are against it on a “personal” level. It’s an absurd setup that we have.

      You say that people gravitate towards personal interest, but unless they have a say in those specific, disparate and wide-banded ‘interests’; then they’ll invariably hold that against the government when totally unrelated subjects come up.

      Instead of denying people a say in specific matters, allow them to see why it is in their own interests to be open-minded and critical in how they make their decisions. Just last month, people in Switzerland against an increase to their legal holiday entitlement. People can be trusted to make the right calls.. it’s just a matter of giving them the opportunity.

      Reply
    • Jim, here’s the problem with your position – you’re sortof assuming that not only do you know what’s best for the entire electorate (which, don’t get me wrong, may very well be true), but that you therefore have the right to deny them to choose their own policies and that particular bit of logic just doesn’t stand, not only because it’s detestable for every other person in the electorate other than yourself, but also because there are nations in the world who prove, *today* that you are in error as to the consequences of such an amendment to the constitution.

      And while Switzerland is indeed an excellent example of how far this approach can be taken, the first steps only require you to look to the UK, and surely if they can have this, so can we…

      Reply
  • Completely secular republic for a start…

    Reply
  • No bank bailouts or guarantees!!!

    Reply
  • Get rid of god….

    Reply
  • One which will put in place a democratic system which ensures that politics is held in higher esteem than it currently is.

    Reply
  • A dail cannot investigate and call witnesses subject to normal judicial review because the Dail is not subject to judicial review. The courts have made this very clear over the years, and there’s been more than enough test cases brought to prove it (anyone remember the bin tax debates? Anyone remember the *first* bin tax debate and how that was won in court and how the next Local Government Act rewote the law to get round the court’s decision?).

    And frankly, the idea of a Dail being empowered to investigate anyone while it contains people who have absolutely no qualifications in being jurists is a downright scary prospect. It’s nothing more than a mob in better suits.

    As to the rest, I’d agree with those completely. I just can’t get my head to agree to the idea of Michael Lowry and Michael Healy-Rae sitting on a Dail committee with investigative powers and the right to compel testimony and make findings of fact — while being utterly immune to prosecution under the Defamation Act and a half-dozen other bodies of regulation which constrict – to protect those brought before them – what Justices can do in the Courts..

    Reply
  • Perhaps we need to adopt new models of politics. Additions I would like to see is a judiciary appointed by a committee of citizens drawn randomly for each appointing session. A Dail with the power to investigate and call witnesses to its committees subject to normal judicial review. The right of citizens to nominate directly candidates for the Presidency. And a system such as the Swiss use very effectively to hold referenda on all major public issues. A further good idea would be a constitutional ban on providing public funds to relieve the debts of privately owned financial institutions

    Reply
  • Good thought-provoking article.
    Worthy as the issues are; it’s important to remember that it’s one thing to explicitly codify aspirations, it’s another entirely to give them meaningful expression through legislation in the Oireachtas, or through judicial interpretation and legal enforcement.
    In any event, I might suggest (admittedly ‘a la esprit d’escalier’) that the time for constitutional examinations of conscience should probably have been back in November 2010 when that parcel of rogues in Leinster House signed us up for perhaps the most extraordinary Budget in the history of the Republic. Without the Constitutional consent of the people, they were allowed to pass into pass into legislation what are effectively international agreements that will bind the country for years to come.
    In an ideal world, when that bill came before Mary McAleese, she should have referred it to the Supreme Court and they should have done duty and ruled the Government’s entry into the agreement as ultra vires for want of a referendum’s benediction.
    Those safeguards are already in the Bunreacht, it just appears that no-one had the will to employ them…

    Reply
  • The biggest issue, that I don’t see any information on, is who actually gets to go to this Constitutional Convention.

    If it’s 66 citizens, how do they make sure they are a representative sample of the Irish population? Who decides who gets to go and on what basis?

    How do we know politicians won’t fill it up with party loyalists and sycophants? If I and others like me who are not part of any political group/lobby wanted to express an interest in taking part, how would we be represented?

    Will the convention listen to ideas sent in by others if they can’t talk part?

    Reply
  • I want a constitution that removes all churches from every aspect of daily life in Ireland

    Reply
  • Great to see this important topic being debated given the lack of media coverage generally.
    The issue of what happens to the Convention’s proposals, the narrow agenda and the lack of resources are worrying. We in Second Republic sent a reponse to the Cabinet’s draft Proposal for a Constitutitional convention.
    to all Politicians in the Dáil and Seanad and it is avaialble is at the following link:
    http://www.2nd-republic.ie/site/?page_id=1163

    The Govt’s proposal for the Convention is at;
    http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2012/02/constitutional-convention-government-proposals-28-february-2012/

    A lively debate on the issue is at the following link:
    http://politicalreform.ie/2012/03/27/change-we-can-believe-in-the-governments-proposed-constitutional-convention/

    John Hughes 2nd Republic (civic society non-aligned organisation focussed on renewal through political reform)

    Reply
  • One amendment that I want to see is the ratio of TDs to per head of population. For example, if the UK used the same ratio they would have to have 3.5 times the number of MPs.

    So my argument is to raise the ratio to 1 TD for every 60,000 this will reduce the number of TDs by 50%.

    That’s 50% less pensions, less expenses, less sitting allowances etc. Possibly 50% less late night decisions to bailout bondholder mates.

    Do we really need to be over represented.

    Reply
  • Scrap the constitution and start again. Dev’s state has failed.

    Reply
  • That picture reminds me of Neville Chamberlin flying back from Berlin to declare “peace in our time”
    And we all know how that turned out.

    Reply
    • Yeah, he bought the time the UK needed to get onto a war footing (their armed forces were a poor joke at the time Chamberlin returned with a few years grace — but thanks to that time they were able to build up to the point that when WW2 broke out, they were able to hold off the most effective armed force in the world at the time for several years). In doing so, he effectively saved what we today regard as the civilised world.

      Neville gets a lot of bad press from his replacement, but frankly, being badmouthed by a warmonger who was the first person to ever use poison gas on civilians and who was the only war leader to be ousted by his own people in a landslide decision before the war even ended, may not be the best basis for forming an opinion of the man…

      Reply
    • Revisionist nonsense. Churchill being a pompous war criminal doesn’t turn his predecessor into a genius. Anyway off topic.

      Reply
    • No, Chamberlin not getting the UK into a war which at the time it had absolutely no hope whatsoever of surviving was what made him a reasonably competent politician. Nobody’s saying anyone’s a tactical genius here, just pointing out that it’s not as straightforward as “Oh, Neville was a coward and if he’d only kicked Hitler in the fork, the world would have been better off”. It just wouldn’t have been – had Britain not acquiesced at the time, it wouldn’t have prevented anything Hitler did – it would probably have precipitated WW2 several years earlier, at a time when the UK would have been able to resist the German army for about as long as France was able to.

      Funny really, you’d think that there was some sort of deeper message in there about how the simplest kneejerk reaction is not always the best in the long run or how the only course of action open to someone might come to be viewed as a character flaw thanks to propaganda from ones opponents over time, or how sometimes the less heroic approach winds up being the one that saves the larger number of people…
      …but no, it’s just Chamberlin, feck that guy, right bro? Chestbump! Beer!

      Reply
  • “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”
    Abraham Lincoln

    Reply
    • Article 41 needs to be preserved!!

      Reply
    • But I’m pretty sure that Abe was referring to the US Constitution and not our own…..

      Reply
    • @ Diarmaid
      He’s quoting someone who gave VERY good advice. It’s a shame no one listened to it in his country…

      Reply
    • A constitutional convention dominated by politicans is like turning Mountjoy into an open prison.

      Reply
    • The notion of ripping up the 75 year old Bunreacht and starting up from scratch is one which should ignored. But there are 3 types of amendments to be considered 1. The uncontroversial eg gender neutral language , matching Irish and English texts, merging the preamble and article one into a secular non-post colonial text 2. Reform of the political structure eg nomination of presidency, getting rid of pr stv, what model for the second chamber (if at all), strengthening the legislature viz a viz the executive and 3. The fundamental ie rights & duties, marriage equality, abortion, god, dualist approach to international law, religion/education and reconsidering the effect of article 45. That’s the type of constitutional convention, I think we need ie one without limitations.

      Reply
    • I would add to Conor’s summary:
      1. Give more power to the senate rather than delete it. Something similar to the US senate.
      2. Strengthen the supreme court’s ability to review/repeal what it perceives as unconstitutional legislation (without having to be asked).
      3. Less on rights of the family, more emphasis on individual rights/liberties
      4. A stronger presidential veto without need to refer to the supreme court(but which can still be overridden)

      Could we look for an alternative to the party whip system? It’s completely unrepublican and defies the purpose of proportional representation. We go to all the trouble of having representatives derive power from the people only to have them subjected to the power of the party whip. You might say nothing would ever be achieved but US congresspeople are allowed vote against the party line if they feel the legislation is wrong and I think it’s probably for the best.

      Reply
    • @Robert You’re saying a quote from Abraham Lincoln is a good reason to never change a constitution?

      You might want to avoid reading about the 13th amendment to the US constitution so, to avoid the irony overload…

      Reply
    • Articles 47, 48 of the 1922 constitution (Ireland) made provision for the suspension and/or overturning of bills passed in the Oireachtas by the voters by way of petition and subsequent referendum. These articles would have permitted the public the powers to overturn bills that permitted the blanket bank guarantee and bondholder bailout. However, these articles were politically dismantled at the 1937 ratification. This usurped power from the Irish sovereign (the people) while enhancing political power of the Dail. There are many other similar examples.
      See Article 48, Bunreacht na hEireann 1922.
      Any Bill passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses may be suspended for a period of ninety days on the written demand of two-fifths of the members of Dáil Eireann or of a majority of the members of Seanad Eireann presented to the President of the Executive Council not later than seven days from the day on which such Bill shall have been so passed or deemed to have been so passed. Such a Bill shall in accordance with regulations to be made by the Oireachtas be submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people if demanded before the expiration of the ninety days either by a resolution of Seanad Eireann assented to by three-fifths of the members of Seanad Eireann, or by a petition signed by not less than one-twentieth of the voters then on the register of voters, and the decision of the people by a majority of the votes recorded on such Referendum shall be conclusive. These provisions shall not apply to Money Bills or to such Bills as shall be declared by both Houses to be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety.

      Article 48.

      The Oireachtas may provide for the Initiation by the people of proposals for laws or constitutional amendments. Should the Oireachtas fail to make such provision within two years, it shall on the petition of not less than seventy five thousand voters on the register, of whom not more than fifteen thousand shall be voters in any one constituency, either make such provisions or submit the question to the people for decision in accordance with the ordinary regulations governing the Referendum. Any legislation passed by the Oireachtas providing for such Initiation by the people shall provide (1) that such proposals may be initiated on a petition of fifty thousand voters on the register, (2) that if the Oireachtas rejects a proposal so initiated it shall be submitted to the people for decision in accordance with the ordinary regulations governing the Referendum; and (3) that if the Oireachtas enacts a proposal so initiated, such enactment shall be subject to the provisions respecting ordinary legislation or amendments of the Constitution as the case may be.

      Reply
    • Correction articles 47 & 48 shown above.
      Remember, political power is only ever enhanced at the expense of citizens liberty.

      Reply
    • And look at the enormous problems the U S has. High murder rate, high rates of violent crime. High rates of social exclusion, poverty, homelessness, etc, etc. The last place Ireland should use as a role model

      Reply
  • Make voting mandatory! That’s a real mandate for change

    Reply
    • Not if the people you vote on can then immediately ignore their pre-election positions.

      The entire basis of voting in a republic is that you pick people whose policies agree with yours. If the people you have to choose from don’t let you see those policies before the election, or have absolutely no compunction about abandoning even the most fundamental of those policies after the election, then even a vote with 100% voter turnout would have no real meaning in the long term.

      Reply
  • I would like to see voting rights to immigrants living here, after say 5 years.

    Reply
  • Sounds like a meeting about a meeting.
    How odd it sounds that equality would even be debated.
    Irish written article on Marriage Equality:
    “A Thought on Marriage Equality: Please Stand for Our National Anthem”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robyn-harper/a-thought-on-marriage-equ_1_b_1433673.html

    Reply
  • I’d like a something added for the often screwed over private sector worker

    Reply
  • We Want To Keep all Our constitutional Rights that were agreed upon from the treaty 2008, Nuetrality in Ireland, No kangaroo Courts, Fair justice, and dignity, fair honest politicians who will run our country, and to call on ESM Referendum to Sort out Economy so that Ireland does not go Bankrupt, And No Water Charges or Household Taxes, Tax the Rich who Earn over 100 thousand a year,Rita Cahill

    Reply
  • i dont trust voting on line, too Dangerous, I Dont Trust Any of the Politicians, they have all let us Down, when it comes down to it i know my Vote!

    Reply
  • Jimmy 23/04/12 #

    The government picks and chooses when to follow the constitution. This will make no odds no matter what is put in; workers, migrants and single mothers will remain exploited and dominated by capitalism and the state. Social inequalities, bigotry, and the class divide won’t shift – except perhaps for worse.

    Reply
  • ” rights to health and housing.” Should also reaffirm our rights to education and a new one ….Water ! . I do not think a ”new” constitution should be drawn up , but a tightening up of these issues should be emphasised. Maybe withdraw out dated unused laws but maintain the ones that insure life , peace and comfort.

    Reply
    • @Susie
      Not sure how you can have a right any of those things you’ve mentioned. How can someone have a right to something that has to be made? Do you not think the only rights that exist and really “can” exist are negative rights? Like free speech and private property etc.

      Reply
    • Robert Kelly
      I have no idea what you mean ! Water is not made , education is not made , a decent health service is not made and decent housing is not made …They are not priveleges , they are rights .

      Reply
    • @Susie
      Sorry I’ll try clarify. What you are describing is positive rights. Positive rights require that we do “something” for them to be fulfilled. Negative rights on the on the other hand simply require a lack of action (something like freedom of speech simply requires you be left alone). So I’m curious, how can we have a right to someone’s labour (education and housing) or some object (like water). For example by not sharing my water am I denying your right to water or am I simply exercising my ownership of the water?

      Reply
    • Robert Kelly
      I still do not understand what you mean . Every one has a right to water . If a homeless person knockss on my door to ask for a glass of water , I am obliged to give him some. I may not necessarily give him my best crystal glass , but once I give him water I have fulfilled my obligation .So in answer to your question . You are denying my right to that water ,you have no right to ownership.
      Robert , it is not just down to how much this or that costs… We all worked very hard for a long long time to get where we are , I am damned if anyone thinks they can come in and pull it all from under me . We must keep our constitution ours . I will be voting No in this austerity .

      Reply
  • Definitely want the role of the father acknowledged in the constitution, also the family unit and the “god” to be looked at.

    Reply
  • Aurfur 24/04/12 #

    Computerised referendum on all major issues and expenditure.

    Reply

Add New Comment