Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
I AM A permanent student of politics. It is my family business and it is my passion. As such, since I relocated to Ireland in 2001, I have immersed myself in Irish politics. In the early days, I devoured every book on twentieth century Irish political history I could get my hands on and used the 2002 general election (the first one I voted in) as a self-taught crash course in how the game is played on this side of the Atlantic. I have continued in this vein over the last topsy-turvy decade and now feel almost as comfortable discussing Irish politics as I do American politics.
I have come to more fully comprehend the nuances of politics here and enjoy that which is different every bit as much as that which is similar to the rough and tumble world of Boston politics I grew up in. My family, friends and acquaintances here who aren’t into politics regard me as an expert; the real experts at least respect my opinion.
But there is one thing that I do not get, and refuse to ever get. That is the extremely rigid whip system which grossly distorts the power balance between individual elected officials and the leadership of the political parties they belong to. It is, or at least should be, a fundamental tenet of a representative democracy that a candidate for political office, once elected, will remain true to herself and to those voters who placed their sacred trust in her. It is far more likely, however, that the elected representative will follow the dictates of the leadership of the political party she belongs to. To buck the leadership on just one vote typically means loss of the party whip and banishment to the political wilderness.
Surprisingly to me, this issue of imbalance is seldom addressed, though columnist and broadcaster Vincent Browne does vent at times about the power of the party whip. As Browne has observed with no small amount of exasperation, the status quo means that an elected representative’s personal beliefs and free will come second. Loyalty to his party comes first. While the rigid whip system is offensive to democratic ideals on matters of local and national import alike, it is particularly indefensible on issues of conscience. Regardless of their viewpoint, most people in Ireland can, I think, agree that abortion is one such issue. And understandably, it is no secret that individual TDs have their own, deeply held views on abortion legislation. Indeed, there is a range of differing opinions within each of the parliamentary parties.
It is, therefore, with dismay that I read the following statement by Enda Kenny this week in The Irish Times. “People who are elected to the party I lead… act and vote in accordance with party decisions. And that is the way that it will be.” In other words, no matter how profound a conviction you might have on the emotive and complex issue of abortion, if you are a Fine Gael TD, don’t even think about not voting with the government.
It is unfair to single the Taoiseach out for criticism on this front. He is merely reaffirming the long-established rules of the game. Yet these rules mean that the politicians who advance into leadership positions get there because they have demonstrated relentless fidelity to their party above all else, as well as an aptitude for defending the party leadership from attack, even when objectively indefensible. Consequently, Irish politicians are inevitably compromised by the time they get anywhere near the top. It is no wonder then that the electorate is so cynical about its political leaders and about politics in general.
The experts to whom I have made these observations claim that a less rigid whip system would threaten stability and cause gridlock. They also argue that it would necessitate a dramatic and probably unworkable change to how laws are made in this country. They cite the undeniable dysfunction of the American system, where intra-party dissent is not encouraged, but is generally tolerated, by both the Republicans and the Democrats. Perhaps most compellingly, they note that the executive and legislative aren’t entirely separate branches of government here.
These are all good points. A total absence of party discipline probably would provoke chaos. Yet this reality doesn’t ripen the rot at the core of Ireland’s rigid party whip system. It facilitates anti-democratic and dishonest governance. Never is this as evident as when TDs, who may run for office as the standard bearers of political parties but who are elected in their own right, are not “free” to vote their conscience on abortion.
Larry Donnelly, a Boston born and bred lawyer, is a law lecturer at NUI Galway. He is a political columnist with IrishCentral.com.
Larry Donnelly’s article is insightful, true, profound and a much needed contribution. This is what good writing is about. It is a pleasure to be informed and enlightened. Excellent writing. Thank you.
When you see Michael d’s independence of govt (acknowledging that he is a member of the Labour Party), his willingness to speak on the inadequacy of the Savita enquiry as initially proposed, one can see how the President as the executive branch could be very refreshing, as a Nation we vote nationally for a national govt and vote separately for local representatives to ratify the proposals of the executive. DeValera had considered this but felt it could result in dictatorship, however it works elsewhere. One problem would be in such a small country with a political office of such significance there could be tens of thousands of legitimate candidates, however the current system has clearly failed us and done so consistently
The greatest cancer in our society is party politics how the needs of a party can be put before the needs of the people is astonishing
“It is, or at least should be, a fundamental tenet of a representative democracy that a candidate for political office, once elected, will remain true to herself and to those voters who placed their sacred trust in her.”
But how do you know that those voters have voted for this person because of their personal beliefs? It is actually far more likely those people voted for her because she was a member of a political party whose policies they support. It is also extremely likely that when a voter cast his/her vote they would have a reasonable expectation that the person they are electing will support the party line on issues.
Is it not fundamentally undemocratic then for a person to seek election on a party political basis and then decide once elected to treat every decision as a matter of conscience and not represent the views of the party they were elected for? That is actually a bigger betrayal of a voter.
The simple fact of the matter is that if you want to be able to vote in the Dail whatever way you feel then seek election as an independent and put your own personal policy platform before the electorate. If however you seek election as a member of a party then you are by definition putting your personal viewpoints aside in favour of the party’s position. You can internally try to influence the party to your way of thinking but ultimately you have been elected on a party position and you should reflect that in your vote.
“Consequently, Irish politicians are inevitably compromised by the time they get anywhere near the top. It is no wonder then that the electorate is so cynical about its political leaders and about politics in general”. Compromise to win the local popularity contest, compromise within the parliament to form a government and above all else compromise to the position of the prominent members of the party to ensure a future prominent position for yourself. In all and every Dail “vote” these compromises come before voting in the genuine interests of the Country. Clearly a vote for a local rep should be just that and decisions of national significance should only be made by people elected nationally, otherwise by the events of circumstance, crucial national decisions are made people with only the mandate of their own consituency but happen to be in the “right” position within the right party at the right time. The idea that the party line is of greater mandate than the votes of the people who elected an individual is a nonsense. Clearly a vote for a representative dictates that your vote should exert a greater influence on the elected than their party allegiance. We either have a radical reform of our political system or face continual underperformance in all areas of public life.
Everybody is cyncial about politics in a recession. But people don’t seem to care as much when they have money in their pockets. That’s just human nature.
As for “genuine interests of the country” no one person can decide what that is. You might believe a certain measure is in the country’s genuine interest but I might completely disagree with you on that. Whose point of view is more valid? And suppose we vote for the same person. How is any legislator then to decide which of our points of view is more valid?
The chances are the people who vote for a TD will have varying opinions on different issues. And exactly who does a TD represent in this case? Does he/she only represent the people who voted for them or do they represent all the electorate of their constituency. In that case should they take into account the views of people who don’t support them when they make up their minds on a vote?
If we are to go by your argument then there is no way that a TD can every represent people or do they just simply vote on what you think the majority opinion of your electorate is. In that case very little progressive legislation would get passed. It was party whips which passed some of the most progressive legislation in this country especially on social measures.
It’s time for riot people of Ireland. They are treating the Irish public like dog
Who are the ” riot people of Ireland”?
very disrespectful to dogs…
What, treat out country like the amadhans on “Love Ulster” day in Dublin some years back? I support change, but not when it descends into riots.
This is an amazing thread! The author’s article is superb but some of the contributions are equally informed and insightful. Posts are often not of this quality.
Seems to quite a low amount of views of the article, which could be indicative of something…
Sometimes the truth hurts!
Is there a political system anywhere that actually serves the population. I dont know much about it, but there must be a better way. Our public servents in office are just the opposite of their title.
interesting and thoughtful read.
Yes there is, Switzerland for example.
The flaw people continuosly make when discussing Irish politics is that they call our system a democracy. It’s a republic. The people only choose in referenda, our elected officials in all other capacities choose for us.
The whip system is too rigid and has had a negative impact on the national discussion. However those that are elected – do so under a party brand. The party pays for leaflets, online profiling and other paraphanelia to ensure the representative has a long and strong impression within the electoral area. Without the party machine that person would stand very little chance of winning an election. They owe a certain element of loyalty to their party – which I believe the electorate understand.
The person can still vote with their conscience – just at a higher price. Which is only appropriate considering the amount the party has invested in the representative.
Also you confuse conscience with democratic representation. A persons conscience may have an opposing view of their electorate. Is that appropriate? No. This is where the party system triumphs over the individual conscience of a representative. The party system has a set format of collective agreed intiatives – so the common goal take priority.
The Irish people, although reluctantly, buy-into the party system. This protects them from petty self interest of individuals and ensures the common good is equated to the common goal.
I broadly agree with you, except that we elect public representatives and appoint public officials. We can unelect the representatives but we are stuck with the officials.
@ Sean Cassidy:
you say – “The flaw people continuosly make when discussing Irish politics is that they call our system a democracy. It’s a republic”
as far as i’m aware over half of the states of the world consider themselves to be ‘republics’
many – the majority, perhaps are democracies also – democratic republics like Ireland, in contrast to undemocratic republics like ‘ the People’s Republic of China’, or the former DDR.
also – England is i think is a monarchy, but it’s also a democracy.
i’m not arguing with you -
just that i don;t understand your point, that a republic can’t be a democracy.
Fair points Sean. Let me give my thoughts:
Most companies and organisations also provide their employees or members the resources to go about their jobs effectively – as you say, parties provide their members with publicity material to help them get elected. However, the most successful companies allow their members some degree of autonomy in their decision making. This doesn’t seem to be the case in political parties. Why don’t political parties trust their members to make their own decisions?
I think if the whip system was abandoned, the majority of the time party members would go along with the party consensus – politicians tend to join parties that broadly reflect their views, after all. It’s a little condescending to tell these professional politicians that they can’t use their own judgement to decide on issues once elected to the Dáil. I agree with Larry Donnelly, that if a politician doesn’t agree with a decision, they should be able to go against the grain, without ending their career. For those who feel that a politician going against the whip is betraying their electors, surely this is something the electors can decide for themselves, either by letting their representative know directly, or by voting them out next time round.
I have not been convinced by any of the arguments in favour of retaining the whip system.
@Mitchell. My point was that we don’t have direct democracy. Where citizens are actively involved in the decisions the state takes from local govt up to national govt. Many of the countries surrounding the netherlands adopt this model.
Our Republic – like the base model of republics is citizens delegate their decision making power to elected representatives.
This is an inherent democratic deficit – although an acknowledged and accepted one.
Also regards the word ‘republic’ in states that are inherently undemocratic thats a matter of symantics. I can call an apple an orange – you’ll only know when you bite into it. These countries might call themselves republics – and they are in the sense of a number of delegated power – but arent in the fact their republic is not underpinned by democratic principles.
@ James.
Your forgetting that the majority of parties are grassroots organisations – policy is built at their national meetings and at their parliamentary party meetings.
If you abandon the whip on principle, then people wont join parties or become involved in policy creation because there is no system to see their views come to fruition at decision making level.
I amnt justifying this – Im just trying to show my understanding.
That’s logical but prospective TDs would have to state their positions on all of these issues before an election so that voters would know where they stand.
Fair enough, Colm; but in the 2011 general election, for example, who could have forseen the tragedy that befell Savita Halappanavar and her family?
Unless you’ve got a crystal ball or can call up Dr.Who, there’s no way a candidate could possibly give their view on every conceivable issue. This itself is proof that Chief Whips and Party leaders care nothing about a member’s personal feelings on the matter. As far as the leadership’s concerned – “It’s our way or the highway”.
@Enda Even without the Savita case, politicians standing for election could still have made their views clear on legislating for the X case. It’s been going on for 20 years after all. If I remember correctly some of the presidential candidates were asked about their stance on abortion in general (though I admit its not the same as a general election). Although neither voters nor candidates can foresee the future, there is nothing stopping them from making their views known on these types of issues.
I think ones views on abortion would be at the top of such a list.
Wrong. Every Government needs a strong whip system. A Government gas to rule with its policies. We can’t have a Government by dissent.
The whip system is unfortunately intrinsically undemocratic but it’s the price one pays for running on a party ticket. In a true democracy representatives would vote in the interest of the people and not the party but the whip system does have its functions…crude and all as it is.
What a pile odd crap, German parliamentarians often vote against the whip and are protected under law from being punished for it. If the vote you are making goes totally against your conscience, then you have two choices, vote with your conscience or abstain.
While this article expresses some interesting ideas it neglects to mention the democratic procedures within parties by which all TDs/senators debate and discuss an issue before a party position is agreed. The Whip actually protects members in issues as divisive as abortion. With a free vote each TD would be singled out, intimidated and pressurised by extremists on both sides of an issue on top of the abuse, often vile and vulgar, TDs receive already on a daily basis.
I myself am a huge fan of Irish History, especially Irish political history and have only come to the conclusion that the whip system only serves to show just how much this ridiculous policy is self righteous, self serving and ultimately self defeating.
Bullying others into accepting and preaching your point of view as to how things should be done simply flies in the face of what democracy should be all about. I grew up in a devoutly Fine Gael household where I was lectured on the ultimate righteousness of that party and its policies, ultimately believing the same thing. I’m also one hundred percent sure that along the length and bredth of this country the exact same thing has been happening in every household for generations, no matter what their political affiliations may have been. Which is exactly this country is in the mess that it’s in today. FF, FG, Labour et al know this and have no worries because they know too well that every five years the same old idiots are going to give them their #1 vote – just like their parents and grandparents did before them.
What I’m PLEADING with the general public to do is this:
1. Step back for a little while
2. Take a look at the big picture from a neutral viewpoint
3. Do some research of your own (don’t wait for somebody to dictate to you on what’s right or wrong)
4. Draw your own conclusions
More and more people like myself have been doing just that and the sad thing is that it had to take the economic, social and sovereign disasters that have befallen us all in order to make us wake up and see what’s really being done to this country – and to Europe in general.
Please, everybody; if you won’t do anything about it, at least take my suggestions for the sake of our future generations.
well said, forget sides of the fence and concentrate on the important things
have a look at this, its the way we should be going
http://youtu.be/jsEZr3s1aBA
Many people followed your four steps but still voted for FF, FG and Labour. Your suggestion seems to be that anybody who voted for these parties didn’t do that. It’s a little insulting and ever more compromised by your mentioning of the word idiots in relation to those voters. And blind party affiliation is not just limited to those three parties either.
People who don’t agree with you or vote differently to you are not idiots, they’re just people who don’t agree with you.
Hi Jim.
My use if the word “idiots” is my own way of referring to those who vote for candidates from specific parties for the wrong reasons – ie: because ‘it’s the family way’. I was an idiot myself because as I mentioned earlier, I voted for FG simply because I was brought up that way, it’s what my predecessors have done and didn’t until recently question my reasons for doing so.
That was my main point by saying to all that they should vote for the right reasons – and NOT because it’s in the family.
“I grew up in a devoutly Fine Gael household where I was lectured on the ultimate righteousness of that party and its policies, ultimately believing the same thing.”
Believe you me, the same is true for Fianna Fail, Labour, all the others that came and went, and Sinn Fein.
There are a lot of Blueshirts on here.
And this is the sort of lazy commentary you get here that just bugs me.
Unless you know any of the commentors here you have no idea who they vote for unless they have clearly stated it. Simply making assumptions because you don’t agree with their viewpoint is arrogant. And even if they were Blueshirts that doesn’t mean they aren’t entitled to a viewpoint.
It may not be your viewpoint but nobody chose you as the final arbiter of what is right or wrong.
Jim Walsh i am so sorry that one little remark Bugs you. But i ask you this am i arrogant or are you ignorant. I do not know who anyone Votes for unless they come out and say it.
Not only are the Blushirts entitled to a viewpoint they are also entitled to force those viewpoints on the rest off us as they rule the country and they are the final arbiters on what is right or wrong.
It’s just they get so touchy when you say anything negative about their beloved Leader Herr Kenny which reminds me of the Brownshirts.
What issue doesn’t involve the conscience of the honest man?
A Politician, A Conscience and an Honest Man. Shit I can’t make a sentence out of that. Sounds like the opening to a Joke
Maybe that’s what politics needs.
Well said….have you sent copies to every TD….particularly the Labour ones
Michael i am not sure if your comment is to me but I have sent emails to very member of the Oireachtas and Dublin City Council. I Got lots of read receipts but that’s it.
The whips main purpose is to remind the TD that he or she was telling lies to the people they asked to vote for them. It has been said that if you keep repeating the same lie over and over you can begin to believe it yourself. Out comes the whip, Reality Check you were lying, you work for us.
The Problem with everyone voting for an Independent candidate is we would have 166 people with Different Views, so trying to form a Stable Government would be extremely difficult.
The upside to voting for an Independent candidate is a Hung Dail as has happened in the past .Then you have to hope that the person you voted for gets in there and holds the Government to ransom so his or her constituency gets everything they ask for in return for voting with the Government again as in the past.
A hung dail lead to some of the worst excesses of the Celtic Tiger.
Your last argument is an appeal to the greed that got us into this mess in the first place. What you’re saying is that as long as you’re OK and have a TD to get lots of money for your area, you don’t care about what’s in the best interests of the country.
No Jim Walsh I am not saying it is OK but it has happened and may happen again. In fact it is happening even now but Minister Reilly is the only one who got caught. I am sure there is more to come. As to your remark about what’s in the best interests of the country you need to ask Brian Cowen, Herr Kenny and Angela Merkel
G
have your say