Oireachtas hearings on electoral reform may be putting the cart before the horse, writes NOEL WHELAN
IT HAS been a surreal week. For the first few days, news was dominated by the little boys’ conkers contest between the Minister for Finance and AIB over the filling of top management positions. After Wednesday night’s soccer match, almost all political coverage ceased as the country got wrapped up in a Saipan-like storm over Thierry Henry’s handball. Then the country was battered by real storms and flooding caused bad disruption, particularly in the west and south.
Meanwhile, quietly beavering away in Leinster House, the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution held further hearings on proposals for electoral reform. If the committee’s proceedings have not attracted much coverage, it is also probably because there have already been dozens of different reports into this thorny issue.
Again, the committee has called in some of the top experts. Among those contributing in recent weeks have been constitutional lawyer Gerard Hogan SC and political scientists Michael Marsh, Michael Gallagher and Liam Weeks. The committee has also heard from voices within the Oireachtas itself who have a track record on the issue, most notably Noel Dempsey and Michael D Higgins.
One senses from reading reports on the hearings that while members feel they have to entertain suggestions for reform of the electoral system, there is little real appetite for change. Neither is any consensus emerging on an alternative.
The committee is right to tread with caution. Many have dabbled in electoral reform and failed, not least de Valera himself, who twice failed to change the system.
Those who argue for change say we need a new electoral system because the intensity of competition which Proportional Representation with Single Transferable Votes (PRSTV) generates in multi-seat constituencies gives rise to our TDs having to spend too much time on local concerns or on representational work for individual constituents.
However, the emphasis on localism and clientelism in Irish politics is not caused by our electoral system, but arises in part from the intimate scale of our politics and the nature of our political culture and in part from the limited influence which our backbenchers have settled for.
If anything, our politicians actually have more time for national concerns than ever. With dramatic improvements in road infrastructure and technology, deputies can keep in touch with their constituencies more easily. Noel Dempsey’s own initiative in prohibiting the dual mandate saves TDs from attending the plethora of local government meetings which had previously absorbed most of their Mondays. The range of facilities available for their constituency operations are such that well-organised deputies could, if they wished, handle their constituency representation workload more effectively. Indeed a few years ago deputies were provided with additional staffing in the form of parliamentary assistants, most of whom have been put to work on raising TDs’ local profile or on dealing with representations.
The anecdotal evidence actually suggests that TDs are spending more and more time on parliamentary work, either in committees or in plenary session. It is the quality of the work they are doing in parliament which is the problem, however, rather than the quantity of time spent. It is the oppressive hold of the party whip system rather than the demands of constituency work which currently undermines TDs’ legislative contribution and capacity to impact on national issues. The set-piece nature of debate in the Dáil chamber is too restrictive. The practice whereby government backbenchers never participate in question time to Ministers, for example, is absurd.
On closer examination, the fact that parliamentary work is so unrewarding, rather than constituency work too demanding, explains the failure of deputies to do more of the former. It doesn’t require a change in the electoral system to alter this, and indeed rushed reform could actually make the situation worse.
The most popular option among reformers is a system in which half of our TDs would be elected in single seat constituencies and the other half elected by some kind of national list system. Under this system voters would still vote in order of preference for the candidates, but with only one seat in each constituency parties would obviously run just one candidate, which would significantly narrow voters’ choice and strengthen the influence of party managers. More importantly, whether or not someone makes it on to the proposed national party list, and the order in which names appear, would be determined by some internal party process. All of this would serve to further tighten the control which the party leaderships have over deputies.
What strikes one most about the debate at the committee is how little is actually known about how our TDs spend their time. While substantial scientific research has been done by Prof Marsh and others into the extent to which the Irish electorate want deputies to focus on their local or personal concerns, very little research seems to have been done on how precisely deputies conduct this constituency function.
The constitutional committee could make a significant contribution to a better-informed debate about electoral reform if it were to commission comprehensive independent research looking at how our politicians currently function – a “working time” study, as it were. Any proposals for change to the electoral system should at least be evidence-based.