INSIDE POLITICS:When it comes to serious political issues, voters regularly show an inclination to ignore their elected leaders, writes Stephen Collins.
IT SURELY says something about the dysfunctional state of Irish democracy that a majority of voters do not appear to be willing to trust the people they have elected to govern them on a fundamental issue of national importance for this and future generations.
Instead, they seem willing to put their faith in a rag-bag alliance including Sinn Féin, ultra-conservative Catholic groups, far-left activists and a wealthy man with connections to the warmongering US neo-conservatives who lives in an stately home.
This says something profound about the state of politics and about the nature of the electorate at a time of the greatest affluence the country has ever experienced. Politicians must look into their own hearts for answers about why they appear to have so little real influence on a matter of such importance.
However, the voters too need to ask themselves questions about their inability or unwillingness to inform themselves about such a serious political issue. While there may be some resentment among the electorate that it is being asked to decide on a matter of such importance to Europe, when the issue is not put to a referendum in other countries, that does not excuse people for failing to inform themselves about the basic issues.
It is a sobering thought that the main reason for voting No to the Lisbon Treaty given by people consulted in the Irish Times poll is that they don't know what they are voting for or they don't know what it is about. There has been a deluge of information about the treaty over the past few months, but if citizens manage to avoid finding out what the issues are, they have to take some responsibility for that themselves.
Those involved in the Yes campaign have to ask themselves questions about why so many voters have refused to pay attention to their message while being willing to believe the wide range of claims, many of them patently false, peddled by the No campaigners.
One paradox about the poll is that while it showed a majority of voters lining up to reject the treaty, it also showed there was no great unhappiness with the Government or the way it was running the country. In fact, the poll showed that Fianna Fáil would have been comfortably returned to office for yet another term if there had been an election this week. Yet on something that is far more important than who sits around the Cabinet table, the voters are happy to ignore the Government and the Opposition too for that matter, and to follow all kinds of pied pipers instead.
It seems that when it comes to electing representatives, the electorate favours messenger boys who perform trivial tasks for individual voters. Our system encourages competition within and between parties. It produces TDs willing to be at the beck and call of the electorate, rather than politicians who stand for clearly identifiable principles.
While it produces TDs who are popular, it appears that does not translate into respect. When it comes to serious political issues, voters have regularly shown an inclination to ignore almost all their political leaders and follow transient figures and movements. Bertie Ahern, the most successful party political leader since de Valera, lost two referendums, one on Europe and one on abortion. In both cases, he had most of his political opponents on his side, but the electorate was not prepared to trust his lead.
It is hardly a coincidence that in both of the defeated referendums over the past decade, almost the entire political establishment was on the losing side. There is clearly a suspicion among voters about any proposal that has the endorsement of almost all the political parties and those institutions who are in a position to be best informed about the issue.
The electorate's scepticism about trusting the establishment is in some ways commendable, but can lead to perverse results. If voters won't trust those who are in a position to know the facts of a situation and instead place their trust in those who often don't know what they are talking about, the end result will inevitably be disaster.
The sky won't fall in if the electorate rejects the treaty, but there will be long-term consequences and it is hard to see how any of them will be positive. A malfunctioning EU is not in Ireland's interests and it would be even more dangerous if the other states or a core of them decided they had no option but to go it alone outside the current structures on important issues of mutual interest.
Probably the most effective counter argument to the "if in doubt, vote No" slogan was provided by Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin during the week. In response to that point, he said voters should ask if the EU had been good for Ireland over the past 35 years. If the answer was yes, then there was every reason to vote Yes to make it work more effectively than voting No to damage it.
It will be very difficult in the final days of the campaign to reverse the trend towards a No victory, but it is not an impossible task. One glimmer of hope for the Yes side is that 60 per cent of those who support the treaty say they have a good understanding of the issues involved, while 44 per cent of the No voters take this view. If this results in a higher turnout on the Yes side the day could be saved, but it will be hard to buck the trend.
Regardless of whether the treaty is carried or lost, those involved in politics need to ask themselves serious questions about the kind of democracy we have. General election results suggest we are close to becoming a one-party state, yet on major issues of public policy, including referendums, a substantial proportion of the electorate seems to have no faith in those who run the State.