Most of the discussion about the presidential election has focused on the ‘who.’ The sudden withdrawal of the previous frontrunner Mairead McGuinness has blown the race wide open, and new candidates are now likely to emerge.
However, it is worth taking time to consider the ‘what’ in greater detail, ie, the job specification.
This is of, course, outlined within Bunreacht na hÉireann, which makes clear that Uachtarán na hÉireann can do little to shape the political direction of the country.
Over the course of the last fourteen years, conservative minded commentators have grown hoarse from criticising Michael D. Higgins for his repeated and brazen attempts to do just that.
In this battle, it is time for the defenders of the old presidential model which existed from the tenure of Dr. Douglas Hyde to that of Dr. Patrick Hillery to accept defeat.
We have made the arguments and have lost. The overwhelming popularity of President Mary Robinson and then Mary McAleese during their respective terms, followed on by the experience of President Higgins, shows that the Irish public is broadly comfortable with presidents being partisan figures.
Higgins saw the opportunity to combine a luxurious lifestyle in the Áras with his longstanding career as a socialist ideologue, and after winning an unlikely victory (with the help of RTÉ) in 2011, he has done just that.
The danger of where this precedent could lead us in the future should be obvious to all, but for better or worse, there is unlikely to be another leader in the mold of President Hillery.
The role of the office has been broadened in the public mind, and the next office holder will be expected to play a much greater role in public discourse than was the norm before 1990.
In this spirit, allow me to suggest some job criteria for this role. No applicant is likely to tick every box perfectly, but a failure to meet any of the specifications may be a sign that some candidates should apply elsewhere instead.
Our first President, Dubhghlas de hÍde, was a consensus candidate chosen in large part because of his role in establishing the Gaelic League.
Whatever his flaws, President Higgins has followed in Hyde’s footsteps very well.
One of the most irksome features of official events in Ireland is when a non-Irish speaker uses the mandatory cúpla focal, often for the benefit of American onlookers, in the certain knowledge that the great majority of the audience will understand as little as they do. Polite applause and a Seamus Heaney quote generally follows.
In the case of Michael D. Higgins however, his love of the native language is obvious, and his ability to speak it fluently adds significantly to such occasions.
This is no minor thing. Ireland had its monarchy forcibly taken from it 1,000 years ago, and much of the original Gaelic culture was lost in time also. We have no High King and royal family to bind the nation to its history, but we have a President in his place.
It is important that that person be connected with the linguistic, musical and sporting traditions of the Irish people. That might mean being a Gaeilgeoir, or being a dedicated member of the GAA or an avid practitioner of traditional music.
A President should be able to tap into that unique culture convincingly. A President Micheál Martin or a President Peadar Tóibín could certainly do this; a President Simon Harris, Ivana Bacik or Holly Cairns certainly could not.
Irish citizens in the Six Counties will not be voting in this presidential election, but they may be voting in the next one.
Irish reunification is not inevitable, but there are reasons to believe a major change is possible. Britain’s economic and political problems are obvious, and a Prime Minister Farage will not be good for the Union.
Politically, economically and culturally, Irish nationalism is in the ascendancy in the North; unionism’s numerical diminution is only one aspect of a more general decline.
Unity would mean a country of 5.3 million people acquiring an entity of almost 2 million. There is no other European country which could see its territory and population increase so significantly in the coming decades, and this will bring all sorts of challenges.
The Irish President will be a vital part of future conversations about unity. Controversies will inevitably arise such as which occurred when President Higgins (correctly) declined to participate in a church service marking the centenary of partition in 2021.
Two Irish Presidents have been Protestants, and both were chosen in part because of a desire to present Ulster Protestantism with an olive branch.
The presidential bridge builder par excellence was surely President Mary McAleese. As a child in Belfast, her home was raked with gunfire by loyalist paramilitaries; as a President, she could embrace former leaders of those same murderous organisations.
McAleese’s early life helped her to understand both Green and Orange. The next president will likely not have the same depth of personal experience, but they should know that this is something they have to work on intensively.
Like other English-speaking peoples, the Irish are generally monolingual.
As well as being the head of our Republic, the President of Ireland is also a key diplomat, and the ability to speak to other people in their own language is an important one.
The fact that President Higgins learned some Spanish while in office, and while in his 70s, is a testament to his diligence, as well as to a certain humility which eludes him in other areas of life.
It is hard to learn a new language, to constantly feel lost for words while struggling to communicate thoughts. After much effort, the President was able to communicate clearly when congratulating the Peruvian people on the bicentenary of their independence.
Given the relatively light workload, if the next president does not possess another language, they should work on remedying this.
Imagine a president who could speak to the locals en français when visiting elderly Irish missionaries in West Africa.
Or imagine a president in Mexico City, toasting the courage of St. Patrick’s Battalion en español. A candidate who could do this on Day One deserves particular attention in this race.
The most consequential act of the Higgins presidency, and the one which damaged his standing most in Government Buildings, was surely his public criticism of the Consultative Forum on International Security.
This severely undermined the work of a body which FFG had intended to be a useful talking shop on the benefits of their own desired policies, as per the usual Citizens’ Assembly model of governance.
Given the constitutional provision that the “supreme command of the Defence Forces is hereby vested in the President,” his intervention was somewhat understandable.
Presidents spend more time in the presence of the Irish Defence Forces than most national politicians, and yet it is a damning indictment of modern Ireland’s neglect of military matters that the last president who shouldered a rifle in the service of Ireland was de Valera in 1916.
The next 7-14 years will be hugely consequential when it comes to Ireland’s evolving security policies. Unarmed neutrality as a policy choice is being abandoned, but what will replace it is not yet clear.
Who Irish voters choose as first citizen will have an impact on that debate, and it would be beneficial if the next president is familiar with the Irish Defence Forces and defence issues generally.
Regardless of who that president is or what s/he thinks about neutrality, the Triple Lock or foreign defence cooperation, highlighting the work of the Irish military should be a presidential priority.
That could involve regular visits to barracks nationwide, occasional visits to those on UN peacekeeping service as well as other activities to honour those who have served, and to encourage young people to consider military service. None of that would be improper.
What the Irish Army does relates directly to what the Irish President does. The meaning of the Constitution’s final dedication – Dochum glóire Dé agus onóra na hÉireann – is reflected in every guard of honour which takes place under a president’s watchful eye.
Individual soldiers retire but their uniform endures, along with the presidency and the nation itself.
A president who understands this will be a good and faithful servant.