Madam, – Last Monday’s conference on political reform and the articles by Prof John Coakley and Dr Muiris MacCarthaigh drawn from their presentations (Opinion, June 23rd and 24th) highlight the pressing requirement for widespread public debate – and action – on the issues raised.
However, it appears that most citizens, battered by the impact of the financial and economic crisis, are mired in a sea of apathy and, perhaps, justifiable cynicism. At the best of times constitutional and institutional reform is dry, dusty, boring and tedious work, but, as we can see, the “rules of engagement” determine how well, or how badly, public policy is formulated and implemented.
Last year the political system in the US displayed a remarkable ability to renew and redeem itself. This reflected the abiding genius of the Founding Fathers and it was achieved largely by requiring presidential candidates (admittedly at enormous expense) to engage directly with citizens at the local level throughout the US. It would make no sense to contemplate a replication of the US system in Ireland (or in other countries where “government-in-parliament” is the dominant system of governance), but some aspects are worth considering.
However, consideration is only worthwhile if there is any prospect of reform. And of this, there is none. The current Government is focused purely on political survival for as long as possible (ideally, in its view, up to 2012). It is, in effect, an elected dictatorship. It is pursuing policies for which it did not receive a democratic mandate and there are no checks and balances to exercise effective democratic restraint on its actions. It has absolutely no interest in the reform of governance.
Similarly, any alternative government, eyeing the currently high probability of seizing the reins of power at the next time of asking, has no interest in rocking the boat.
The rapidly churning news cycle and the continuous search for novelty to maintain sales and commercial viability distract the media from their key role in investigating and holding government to account. The academic fraternity (mainly in the public sector), even if it strikes a balance between independence and patronage, is largely condemned to commentate from the sidelines.
We might as well face it. All the forces and resources (political, media, intellectual) required to inform and mobilise popular support for reform are simply not engaged and have no incentive to engage. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I refer to Prof John Coakley’s excellent article (Opinion, June 23rd). In particular I was quite taken by his observation that if political leaders wish to remain connected to the electorate “painful adjustments to long-established political practices may be called for”. It reminded of Montesquieu who in setting out the modern doctrine of the separation of powers noted that “to prevent abuse of power, it is necessary that by the very disposition of things power should be a check to power.”
From any clinical analysis of what has happened in this country over the past year it is clear that our present economic difficulties were not caused solely by international factors but more particularly by systemic failures which go to the root of how this country is governed. These failures stem in part from the imperfect separation of powers which exists between the legislature and executive under our Constitution, difficulties which are exacerbated by the conservative political culture which supports it. Clearly too much power has been concentrated in the hands of the executive, resulting in budgetary indiscretion, waste, and over-delegation of executive responsibility to programme managers and quangos; this growth in executive power has occurred at the expense of the directly elected legislature which should act as a check on executive power.
Prof Coakley correctly refers to the parliamentary system of government which exists under our Constitution (an imperfect separation of powers model) which allows members of the executive to be simultaneously members of the Oireachtas, however I disagree with his observation that “this in no way diminishes the power of parliament”.
While in theory the government is answerable to parliament, in reality this is not the case; the government has a stranglehold over the legislature through the whip system and the need to maintain a government majority in the Dáil; this denudes the legislature of its independence, its power of oversight, debate, and the right to freely legislate in the national interest, thus acting as a check on the growth of executive power.
Until such time as we the people redress this institutional imbalance within the Constitution by creating a more perfect separation of powers, we will continue to suffer the ill-effects of conservative politicians overfamiliar with the system, incapable of institutional reform – and systemically failing the people who they were elected to serve. – Yours, etc,