Sir, – The recent controversies that have arisen around the presidency effectively undoubtedly mean that the traditional perceived role of the office being above politics has been called into question, if not diminished.
The president is ultimately accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas, by virtue of their constitutional power to impeach (the “nuclear option”), but significantly not in day-to-day matters. The distinction drawn in the Constitution whereby the president is not answerable to either House, in my view supports the impeachment process should it ever be necessary, as the question of prejudice would arise for members of the Oireachtas, who would then be required to be in judicial mode. This would arguably be a good reason for the chairs of either House to put some restriction in debate to try and avoid the office of president becoming a political football on the floor of either House.
Whatever about the the interpretation or perception of rules or conventions concerning the role of the president, it is a question of credibility for the office of president itself when his role comes into play in major issues where he is required to exercise discretion; for example, in granting a dissolution of the Dáil where the taoiseach no longer has a majority. The “phone calls to the Áras” controversy in 1982 comes to mind when the FitzGerald government fell on a budget resolution and President Hillery did not respond to the statement by the leader of the opposition Haughey to refuse a dissolution to allow the Dáil to form an alternative government from the existing Dáil, without an election. In John Walsh’s official biography of Patrick Hillery, one of the reasons Hillery did not refuse FitzGerald a dissolution was because “he was determined to avoid embroiling the presidency in party politics”.
How would President Higgins stand be perceived if such a controversy arose today? By his interventions, particularly in his second term, Mr Higgins has courted controversy but equally has run the risk of losing credibility and the public confidence in him that he would act impartially, should a serious issue arise where he is required to exercise his discretion, such as his predecessor did in 1982.
An Irish businessman in Singapore: ‘You’ll get a year in jail if you are in a drunken brawl, so people don’t step out of line’
Protestants in Ireland: ‘We’ve gone after the young generations. We’ve listened and changed how we do things’
Is this the final chapter for Books at One as Dublin and Cork shops close?
In Dallas, X marks the mundane spot that became an inflection point of US history
It would be ironic if after all the good work done by him that the office was ultimately weakened by undue controversy caused in the main by his own initiative. That is why, in my view, the traditional convention of holding the role of the president to be above politics is sound and should continue and be adhered to by all concerned, including the President.– Yours, etc,
KIERAN COUGHLAN,
(Former clerk of the Dáil),
Dublin 18.