Why ARE we so addicted to referendums ...and are they any way to run our country?
Some say they’re a vital check on constitutional change. Others say they’re an AFFRONT to democracy. As the nation gets ready to vote again...
ARE we addicted to referendums? Marriage equality, the abolition of the Seanad, the Lisbon Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty again – and now the current referendum proposal to repeal the Eighth Amendment. We’ve had a deluge in recent years, with three more planned for this October, and a further three in 2019.
Is the Irish tolerance of referendums simply because Irish people love politics, and the small population, coupled with multi-seat constituencies and relatively large local councils means that citizens tend to know their politicians, or at least be able to name them?
Is it the PR voting system – a referendum to replace it was defeated in 1968 – which ensures a level of excitement and anticipation which simply does not exist in ‘first past the post’ politics?
Is it the rough and tumble of the count? The tallymen may not drink as many pints as they once did, but they still lean over the barriers at a count, keep impressive track of the votes and the boxes they came from, and spend hours engaged in convoluted predictions, some of which even prove correct.
The Irish acceptance of referendums is not built solely on these very real connections with politics and current affairs. Neither can it be put down to the love of debate and a healthy argument, although these too play their part. Referendums are actually a basic requirement of the Irish Constitution, which of course is what each referendum seeks to change.
The procedure was written into Article 46 of the Constitution, and it requires any proposed constitutional amendment to be drafted as legislation, passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas and then put to the people by vote. Effectively, citizens have no other route to amend the Constitution of the country, other than by being asked to walk into their polling station and cast their vote. The referendum is de facto an accepted part of our political landscape.
THE Ireland of the mid-1930s that produced the first Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann, included Article 46. While they may not have used the term ‘direct democracy’ at that time, they effectively opted to retain certain powers in the hands of the State’s citizens, rather than, as in many other countries, cede all that power to legislators. However, as representational politics becomes more firmlyestablished, with constituency boundaries regularly being redrawn to ensure a reasonable representational ratio, there is now a clear argument to make, that the referendum diktat is now a throwback to an outmoded system of politics.
In addition, the recently reformed committee system in the Oireachtas which aims to modernise the legislative process, can drive a more structured, reasoned, consultative type of debate prior to the drafting of any legislation. The new design provides for and encourages an evidence-based structure, replacing what was often nothing more than a platform for windbags and grandstanders.
In addition, live streaming of such debates allows voters a ringside seat to evaluate their public representatives in a new light. Together, this will help to push for the long overdue and much-needed professionalism of Irish politics. It also strengthens the role and responsibility of parliament and its members.
Indeed, full and lengthy Oireachtas committee hearings were hosted before this current referendum, something that has not happened on previous occasions. It marks quite a sea change from the taoiseach of the day, Brian Cowen, revealing, 10 years ago, that he had not read the Lisbon Treaty, while canvassing for a Yes vote in that referendum.
In fact, it was the Lisbon Treaty referendum itself that plunged the whole concept into turmoil when the then government opted to rerun the referendum because the first vote delivered a No. This outcome, left to stand, would have effectively ended Ireland’s relationship with Europe. The EU was keen to move on with installing its new quasi treaty or constitution and Ireland, the only member state which required a referendum to ratify it, was letting the side down or signing its own exit papers. Turnout, at 53%, had produced a slim No victory in 2008, so, 14 months later, with turnout at 59%, the Yes vote came through, with 67% in favour.
There was much soul-searching about these events, but only a total boycott on the second polling day could have sent a strong message to Leinster House that a referendum result should be treated as firm and final. However, Article 46 is silent, as the lawyers say, on the question of how long a referendum result is binding, allowing politicians to say that the people could legitimately be asked the question once again and to argue, that if the people were determined to abandon the Lisbon Treaty, they only had to say No a second time.
In the event, the increased turnout and the huge swing to a Yes vindicated those politi-
cians who had politicised the process and wanted to secure, for the time being, Ireland’s future in the EU. The reasons for the eventual sharp change in the result could be analysed for hours, but it can be argued that one enormous contributing factor was simply that electors are fickle, that people change their minds with the wind and that they are unpredictable when it comes to exercising their prized vote.
Observers from other countries might believe that we should, by now, have reached referendum fatigue or be organising boycotts if any more constitutional changes are put to the people. On the highways and byways however, about half of Irish voters still turn out to vote, with many voters investing considerable time and effort in trying to ensure they understand the ramifications of what they are doing with their vote.
Bar-stool observers often suggest that all these referendums are a waste of time – and money. Printers who produce thousands of promotional leaflets, stickers, banners and posters of all sizes and shapes would certainly disagree, but, leaving them aside to count their profits, it would be easy to climb up on the bar stool and agree with the waste theory. Especially when we look around at our EU counterparts and realise that we are almost on our own when it comes to this kind of behaviour. They don’t. Have them, that is.
Apart from Switzerland, where it is not unusual to have six referendums (local and national) in one year on subjects including biometric passports, minarets, complementary medicine, aircraft noise; it really is a long and varied list. Ironically, Switzerland is not part of the EU proper, because their referendum on joining the EU was defeated overwhelmingly. And then, of course, there’s the recent UK flirtation with the referendum concept; not something they will be rushing to repeat!
The UK Remain lobby would disagree with one of the so-called strengths of this form of ‘direct democracy’ – that all votes are equal. No request is made of anyone to understand or know what the vote is about or why it is happening. As long as the person is on the electoral register, and turns up to vote without coercion, their X on the ballot paper is counted as a valid vote. Their state of knowledge is not tested. This situation has been construed by the Remainers, and many others, as a key weakness in the referendum approach; the putting of complex questions to the public without being able to ensure that sufficient numbers of voters ever really understand the significance of what they are being asked.
THE alternative of opting for a straight Yes/No type question to make the vote easier for voters to grasp, has its own obvious dangers.
An additional vulnerability of referendums has been emerging in recent months as the apparent secret influences and operations of outsiders during the Brexit referendum begin to emerge. There have, and always will be, those who would interfere with the democratic process of other countries but the worldwide web has made that task infinitely easier than before. The ugly truth is that a referendum style Yes/No election is easier to target than the lengthy style of debate and discussion that now form part of the legislative process.
Equally, strong, colourful personalities can drive the wider debate more easily in a referendum and their oversimplified, sometimes passionate debating style sounds infinitely more attractive than the line-by-line explanation of some complex and dry legislation.
Earlier this year, British politician and the last Governor of Hong Kong Chris Patten went as far as to describe referendums as ‘fundamentally anti-democratic’ and ‘a sin against parliamentary democracy.’
As a committed Europhile, he was motivated to vehemence by the Brexit decision, but his underlying thoughts have some merit, especially as voters often cannot refrain from using referendums to kick their politicians in the head, rather than being responsible citizens and voting solely on the question put before them. So, as the modernisation and professionalism of Irish politics gathers pace, is it the beginning of the end for Article 46? Has that time come to kiss goodbye to 1930s Ireland and all that it represented and contributed, including this now anachronistic reliance on referendums? When, indeed, might Article 46 itself become the subject of a referendum?
The truth is that it is only a matter of when, not if, for the end of Article 46 – as we know it now – to be replaced by some modernised, updated streamlined and rare use of referendums, rather than a catch-all for every constitutional change required in coming years. After all, aged over 80, the document is rooted in the past; hardly fit for the future.
WHAT’S important here is the when. We are not, in my opinion, yet ready to jettison our referendum style of decision-making. Referendums have allowed wide-ranging debate and discussion, even if sometimes robust and difficult, to take place – in cafés, offices, football grounds and schools. They have encouraged people to mobilise and to politicise. Civil society is beginning to understand that it has a role in organising and lobbying for change. It is more ready to seize opportunities, to debate, to use social media and modern marketing to campaign and persuade. All this effort builds the internal backbone of democracy and will ensure that, in the future, the political system benefits from the strength and depth of challenge that civil society can bring to bear on it.
That process has only started. There is much to undo. A quick glance back at the creation of that first Constitution in the mid-1930s is enough to remind us of the work that remains.
The small team chosen and overseen by taoiseach Éamon de Valera to create the Constitution included no women. Specifically, three priests had a significant influence on the document that was presented to the people for ratification in July 1937. Much of its drafting and redrafting was behind several sets of closed doors. There was no public scrutiny. The drafting procedure was not even shared by de Valera with his own Cabinet. In a final irony, the new Constitution had to be put to the people in a referendum in July 1937, which was only narrowly carried.
The radical changes to Irish society in the last 25 years have begun to deliver a highly educated, mobile population, with a large proportion of younger people, asserting their opinions through their voting power. Their Ireland is not rooted in ‘Civil War politics’. Their Ireland is not built on farming. And their Ireland is not centred around the Pope and his Church.
But this growing up of our nation is slow; we are still shaking off the dust of the colonial past, the CivilWar split, the patriarchal structure, the State driven by the Catholic Church, the lower status of women and children and the extraordinary ingrained secrecy and lack of accountability which still permeates through society.
It takes time to unravel the damage of decades. For now, referendums play an important role in that unravelling. When they have run their course, Article 46 can and should be reshaped, in an Ireland whose voice will be stronger, and whose voice will be more easily heard.