A bill to reform the process by which candidates for the Presidency can get onto the ballot has recently been proposed by Peadar Tóibín’s Aontú Party. Given much of the controversy around the recent election to the highest office in the land, this is an opportunity to reflect on the state of our democracy.
Many have contended that the successful effort by the two main Government parties to exclude any independent candidates is undemocratic. By imposing the Whip directly or indirectly on both members of the Oireachtas and County Councillors to ensure that no independent candidate would be nominated, the Party leaders have arguably overreached their brief. Is that true?
The use of the Party Whip was inherited from Westminster, where it was developed in the 18th century to enable legislation to be passed more efficiently. The Whip system did not deny the right of individual public representatives to voice their opinions but, if a public representative voted in parliament against a declared policy of his Party, he would (and should) lose the Whip.
It requires singular courage for a Party member to vote in accordance with his or her convictions and against the stated position of the Party, as it will frequently involve his or her having to forfeit the Whip (at least for a period of time). Nevertheless, such is the price that must be paid to ensure a healthy democracy, which ultimately depends on elected representatives assuming responsibility for the common good.
The nomination of a candidate for the Presidency is not a matter that impinges on the implementation of Government policy or the enactment of Government sponsored legislation. In that context, the imposition of the Party Whip seems excessive given that the nomination of a candidate for the Presidency would not affect the conduct of Government business.
The Presidency is supposed to be above Party politics. The President is the official Head of State and so should not be the representative of any one Party or policy. Members of the Oireachtas and County Councils, to whom has been entrusted the responsibility of nominating candidates, have the duty in conscience to nominate only those whom they personally consider suitable for such high office, irrespective of the opinions or wishes of their respective Party Leaders. The writ of the Whip should not extend to Party members in this instance.
Why then did the leaders of the two biggest Parties in government put such pressure on their members not to allow candidates be nominated other than those approved by their party leadership? The answer would seem to lie in the incremental transformation of the office of the President over the past few decades from an office that stood above politics to one where the incumbent in word or deed showed his or her ideological preference for – or even engaged in comment on – matters which the Constitution decrees are the preserve of government and the elected members of the Dáil and Seanad. The Presidency has taken on an ideological, and thus a political, significance.
Apart from signing a Bill into law – if necessary, after referring it to the Supreme Court after consulting the Council of State – the President has no direct input into legislation. But he or she now has so-called “soft power”: this is the ability to indicate his or her preference for one or other political or ideological aspiration or position.
Recent incumbents of the office of President have not been shy in advocating for “progressive” and “liberal” values and positions to effect political change in society, assured of finding an echo in a sympathetic mainstream media This was confirmed by the headline on the front page of the Sunday Independent after the election quoting the newly elected President: “Let’s shape a new republic”. That sounds alarmingly like: Let’s make Ireland great again!
However, the main threat to Irish democracy is the present general scepticism with regard to politicians. This is due to the fact that few elected representatives now seem to be willing either to think for themselves or stand up and be counted. They unswervingly toe the Party line, even when it goes against their conscience with regard to fundamental moral principles, as was the case in relation to the referendum to remove the protection for the unborn child from the Constitution and in voting for legislation afterwards.
Such subservience to the Party means that there is little debate on serious issues or matters affecting the common good – especially on those moral issues that are the bedrock of society. Debate in Dáil Éireann suffers accordingly.
As indicated by the low turnout for the presidential election and the high number of spoilt votes, the general public has become disillusioned with politics – many feel disenfranchised. And that leaves the door open to the very real possibility that a small number of highly motivated extremists (on the left or right) could ultimately gain power.
Fr D. Vincent Twomey SVD is Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology