DESPITE efforts to render the event exciting, our political masters only managed to lure just over one quarter of the electorate into the voting booths for the Bail Referendum, amidst accusations that as the issues at stake had become increasingly blurred, so had the people become increasingly bored.

There are those, for example, who will still argue that this referendum, in terms of the amendment proposed, was unnecessary. Earlier this year, they will say, the Constitution Review Group presented the Government with proposals which it believed, if implemented could have incorporated safeguards to protect the community while also strengthening individual constitutional rights.

And there are others who will hold to the original belief that the bail laws had to be changed to come to grips with the drug pushing crisis, with attacks on the elderly, armed robbery, sexual assault and other serious and violent crimes.

Then there are those who will reiterate that the right to detain to prevent reoffending is an antithesis to the presumption of innocence and is, therefore, the denial of a basic human right.

And there are others yet again who will continue to decry the fact that public funds were used to finance a referendum which the public clearly did not want and which could have been so much better used in service to the poor, especially at Christmas time. But recriminations aside and in retrospect, what does the low turnout at the polls tell us?

With little in the way of open debate and with scant discussion, it was indeed a campaign conducted with an incredibly low profile, given its unique distinction of being one of the few in which all the main political parties, with the exception of the Green Party, were united in agreement on the issues involved.

Had the McKenna judgment during the divorce referendum really such an effect on the Government that it mitigated against it providing anything in the way of information about the amendment other than a simple 650 word statement in support of the proposal, and a 650 word statement against?

One could argue therefore, that it was the Government's confusion throughout the campaign that kept the majority of people away on polling day. But is that the truth of the matter?

In retrospect, it makes fascinating reading to revisit comments by members of the voting public in the weeks leading up to last Thursday's referendum. The following are a few examples:

. "The main reason given for this referendum is to prevent crime being committed by people on bail but if that is the case, why not tackle the issue of crime committed by people on bail?";

. "The referendum will not solve all crime, but it will prevent at least some ruthless criminals from re offending";

. "There is definitely one category of victim which this referendum will not help and that is the victim of a miscarriage of justice";

. "The vast majority of the people in this country live in fear due to the activities of the criminal fraternity";

. "Stipulating substance abuse as one of the criteria on which bail can be refused is in effect criminalising what is considered a medical condition";

. "This referendum is simply about restoring the balance in our criminal justice system";

. "The referendum could be seen to pander to that section of our society which would measure the quality of our criminal justice system in terms of numbers detained in prison";

. "It is time people started standing up against the persistent criminal."

No matter what your private belief, you cannot but recognise in these disparate views voices of common sense bearing witness to a public gaining in social responsibility.

So if it is true, as I read recently, that elections are the all powerful arbiter of policy, and if the people sitting in judgment are informed - albeit self informed - on the issues at stake, does a low turnout at the polls cast aspersion on the policy under determination or on the politicians who put it there?

It has been suggested that the referendum would never have happened, but for the murder of Veronica Guerin. Was this indeed, then, as some have claimed, just a vote catching exercise wherein our elected representatives with an eye on re election, pandered to a frustrated and embattled electorate suffering the social costs and effects of crime? Or was it a genuine and serious attempt to confront the criminal and eliminate crime? I suppose only time will tell, for political pressure will be required to bring about the radical reform of the criminal justice system and penal regime so long overdue, and only ongoing political commitment can copper fasten promises made to an electorate.

In the meantime, the important challenge for those of us still concerned about crime, and not convinced that in the outcome to this referendum we will witness a panacea for the ills besetting this society, is to lead by example.

We need to get involved in local development initiatives, in the national anti poverty strategy, in persuading those representing our interests to promote social as well as economic values. We need to lobby for the better integration of those statutory services charged with the responsibility of dealing with crime, and we need to press for pro active rehabilitation programmes in our prisons, and treatment facilities for drug offenders in our communities.

We must argue strongly for additional resources to be given to the gardai to allow a pro active rather than reactive response to crime prevention. And we must insist that the underlying hope with which people went to the polls last week - that in voting for the amendment they would be mandating for a safer society - be realised.

After all, it will only be with such realisation, and in the enactment of the pre referendum promise which they made - that the innocent will not suffer - can our politicians show that honour is not only found among thieves.