I have always been proud of our democratic system in Ireland and have often looked askance at other less fortunate countries with autocratic systems of government. Indeed, we have tended to be a little disparaging of the UK model, where the people are subjects rather than citizens, writes Michael Casey.
More recently, many of our commentators have wondered whether democracy in the US is in jeopardy, not just because of dimpled chads and judicial rulings, but because of the ominous role of money and commercial power in the US system. The simple, indisputable fact is that there would not have been an invasion of Iraq if the will of the majority in both countries had held sway.
The recent election in Ireland and the process of government formation afterwards raise fundamental questions about the nature of our democracy. Perhaps we are caught up in some global trend towards the disenfranchisement of the citizen. This time we didn't get the government we voted for and it is most unlikely we will get the policies we want.
In the first place the election process itself was seriously flawed in that very limited information was provided by the main parties on the important issues, and much of that information was misleading. So-called policies were put about which had no analytical basis whatsoever.It didn't seem to matter whether any of these policies would work or not, or whether they would hit the desired targets; what mattered was that they sounded good.
The media tried on several occasions to fill the information gaps, but it was an impossible task.
Nearly all the political parties were clustered around centrist policies, including the Labour Party, which now appears to embrace low-tax/low-spend policies, and no party reached out to consumers, the most important and most representative group in the country. Consumers, of course, do not contribute as much as producers to party funds and they continue to be ignored with impunity, as they have been since the foundation of the State. There were no policy proposals to reduce indirect (or stealth) taxes, for example, even though these are very high in Ireland and have a disproportionate effect on low-income earners.
Strategy advisers had reasons for keeping the economy off the election agenda, but there was probably also a sense that the process of social partnership dictates economic policy anyway - and to a large extent it does. But this process, which goes way beyond pay determination and benchmarking into areas of taxation, fiscal policy and the environment, is fundamentally antidemocratic. The division of society into those who are invited into the social partners' tent and those who must wait outside is diametrically opposed to the notion of democracy.
Parties which had a coalition pact made no effort to inform the electorate about what their actual negotiated programme for government might look like; we were told it would be some compromised version of the individual party programmes but we had no idea what form the compromises might take - what proposals would be dropped or changed, and which new ones would be adopted.
We now have a government which no one could have predicted. The cobbling together of a programme for government was done behind closed doors. None of us who voted in the election has any notion of what it contains. During the election we were urged by politicians to focus on the important issues as contained in their individual party manifestoes. Given the random and pragmatic negotiations which occurred after the election, we now know all of those urgings were a charade. The electorate had no opportunity to vote for or against the programme for government.
The same is true of the bilateral deals which were done with the Independents. No one knows what they involve or how much taxpayers' money will be misspent.
The creation of new junior ministerial positions on the hoof to create remunerative jobs for new deputies is also unacceptable. The process of appointing people to the Seanad - a club for failed politicians - is equally questionable from a democratic standpoint.
The time has come for a body like the Council of State to oversee and protect the democratic process in this country. Politicians, perhaps more than entrepreneurs, need to be regulated. It is obvious at this stage that tribunals will have no effect whatsoever in cleaning out the Augean stables. The legal remit of the Standards in Public Office Commission is far too narrow to address the wider issues of democracy. Indeed, recent events bearing on "conduct unbecoming" clearly indicate that there is no longer any fear of sanctions among politicians.
Although the citizen has several ombudsman offices, advice bureaus and the like, these bodies invariably "blame" Civil Service departments or some other of our 800 public bodies. They rarely take politicians to task. It would be better to rationalise several of these bodies and use the resources to regulate and supervise the practice of politics in this country, including freedom of information.
The media also has an important role. Its first task should be to undertake a poll about how people feel about the recent election and about the process of government formation. The first question in the poll should be: "Would you have voted for the present coalition Government?"
Media interviews of Ministers about their policies need to be far more probing, and experts should be engaged to develop this process. Without honest and clear information democracy will die. The ruling party controls the information while the numbers of spin doctors and PR advisers continue to grow. The recent election demonstrates all too clearly how real these dangers are.
Michael Casey is a former assistant director general of the Central Bank