Sir, – There has been recent comment for a loosening of the party whip to allowing politicians have a free vote on matters of conscience. The challenge is that if politicians have a free vote, they will be harassed by sectional interests looking to change their vote. Because of this, many weak politicians like the whip precisely because it protects them from this harassment. The recent docudrama on Charlie Haughey illustrates this problem. When Charlie McCreevy and Albert Reynolds proposed motions of no confidence in Haughey, both asked for a secret ballot, and for the vote on having a secret ballot to also be secret. The reason was obvious, a secret ballot allows weak politicians the courage of privacy to cast an honest vote. This was undermined by having an open ballot to decide whether to hold a secret ballot on having a secret ballot on the vote on no confidence, thus those voting for a secret ballot gave themselves away. While looking ludicrous it shows that a weakened party whip is undermined by an open vote.
When parliamentary elections began, they were by open ballot, and the threat of eviction ensured that tenants voted according to their landlord’s wishes.
During the 19th century the secret ballot was introduced so that voters could not be intimidated, bullied or bribed into voting against their conscience. If it is good enough for the people, why not for the politicians? The whip system can’t exist if all votes in the Oireachtas are by secret ballot!
Naturally some will argue that they have a right to know how their politician votes. But if a vote is open, how do you know if it is an honest vote? Only with a secret ballot can politicians be freed from intimidation and harassment to be allowed to vote according to their conscience. – Yours, etc,
JASON FITZHARRIS,
Swords,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – As a former Labour backbencher in two governments, it is my opinion that the time has arrived for serious reform of the present whip system as it is outdated because the present electorate is far more involved with political issues and more aware of what it wants from government as a result of dramatic developments in the area of communications.
The absence of real reform has produced a large number of Independent TD who have chosen that position to ensure that they are free to represent the views of their electorate.
I found it very difficult, at times, to represent the views of my electorate because of the whip system, which curtailed what I could say as a government backbencher and how I would vote on serious issues.
Unless we face up to the serious issues that arise from the stifling of democratic debate, street politics will flourish and become an alternative rather than another component of political activity and so reduce the authority of government.
Delay in addressing serious and meaningful reforms will seriously damage our democracy. – Yours, etc,
EAMONN WALSH,
Dublin 12.