Sir, – Dr Eoin O’Malley defends robustly the indefensibly over-rigid Irish party whip system (May 7th).
The whip system – and the gross imbalance between the leadership of political parties and their individual elected officials that it perpetuates – is one thing I cannot accept. Dr O’Malley calls the whip a “voluntary arrangement”. But when aspirants to elective office are seeking (ie, begging) to be ordained their party’s nominees, just how “voluntary” is it from the outset?
Moreover, how is it at all reasonable that Irish political parties demand that their elected members march in lockstep, like unthinking sheep, with their leadership on each and every single vote in the Oireachtas? Dare to go off the reservation – whether on an issue of conscience (abortion is not the only such issue) or on a matter that is vitally important to one’s constituents – on just one vote and the penalty is typically banishment to the political wilderness.
This being the case, what incentive is there for the overwhelming majority of Oireachtas members who belong to political parties to engage fully with and examine carefully all the myriad matters they vote on when they are simply going to be told how to vote anyway?
Furthermore, how can commentators who defend the status quo criticise backbench TDs for engaging in clientelism, when that is now the only way that they can distinguish themselves in any way as individuals come election time?
I’m afraid that as long as the whip’s extreme rigidity is maintained, it is anything but a “red herring”, as Dr O’Malley alleges. And given the unprecedented level of scrutiny the party whip system is currently receiving, I’m cautiously optimistic that reform could happen in future. – Yours, etc,
LAWRENCE DONNELLY,
Lecturer & Director of
Clinical Legal Education,
School of Law,
National University of
Ireland,
Galway.