A detectable undercurrent of anger and resentment is growing in Irish life because of the manner in which the main political parties are treating the Presidency. The decision by Mrs Robinson not to seek a second term has been regarded by them as an unwelcome problem, rather than a fresh opportunity to develop the office. Instead of treating the Presidency as the hugely important symbolic position it has become during Mrs Robinson's term in office, the party leaders have chosen to reduce the process to an unworthy kind of political horse-trading.
For the past two months, candidates within Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the Labour Party - along with a handful of Independents - have actively sought nominations to contest the election. At the same time, senior party members have looked elsewhere for an agreed candidate who would save them from the political effort of an election, with its considerable expense and the prospect of defeat. The fact that the political parties are in a position to ignore the wishes of Mrs Robinson - and the desires of very many people - that an election should be held, is unfortunate.
In opposition, the Tanaiste, Ms Harney, argued cogently that the nomination system for the Presidency was too restricted. As things stand, candidates must be endorsed by 20 members of the Oireachtas or by four city corporations or county councils, before they can offer themselves for election to the highest office in this State. In effect, the three main political parties control the nomination process. Small parties and Independent members of the Oireachtas are excluded.
And there is no provision for the will of the people to be expressed through some form of popular endorsement. Yesterday, Ms Harney - when denying reports regarding Mr John Hume's possible candidacy in another newspaper - expressed the hope that the allparty Constitutional Review Commission, which meets next month, will consider this matter.
The fact that three parties control the nomination process, allied to a lack of overt political power within the office, has encouraged a lackadaisical approach to the Presidency in the past. It came to be viewed as something approaching a retirement home for ageing, deserving politicians. And, in latter years, candidates were agreed by the parties in advance, obviating the need for costly, bothersome elections. That is until the last occasion, in 1990, which saw the dramatic and unexpected election of Mrs Robinson.
The changes she wrought in the office over seven years and the public's response to a new style of Presidency stripped of party political affiliations, should not be forsaken. She was the people's President, elected by popular mandate and representing all sections of society. A degree of political horse-trading and negotiations behind closed doors can be expected in any nomination process. But in this case it has dragged on for far too long with Mr Hume's lack of decision fuelling other egos and arming others' arguments. And, in the process, it has besmirched the office of President and reduced it, once again, to something of a political bauble. The Presidency - and its eventual incumbent - deserves more. So does the electorate.