One of the most significant things the Republic could do now is to move on from commemorating the men and women of 1916 and continue to build on what they achieved. Much of what we have inherited from that period is no longer appropriate, including our electoral system.
There has been, since the election, much talk of reforming our parliament. While reform of the Houses of the Oireachtas is urgently necessary, it is a small matter compared to the unsuitability of the political system we have inherited.
What is more difficult to tackle is our political system, based as it is on the PR-STV electoral system. This produces the parliamentarians who in turn produce our governments. The harm it has wrought cannot be overestimated.
Much of our flawed political decision-making and short-termism can be traced to it. The multiseat constituency, as well as being wasteful, has created a political culture dominated by localism and clientelism. It has a direct bearing on the formation of government, both in the talent thrown up by this system and its requirement that geographical location of the candidates is a major factor.
The electorate has been weaned on this system and every constituency wants to have a minister, to ensure special favours. The minister might be contributing much but if he or she is not distributing “goodies” to the constituency, re-election will be problematic. The political “clinic” is sacrosanct. Effective ministers have lost their seats because they were seen to have “neglected” their constituencies.
PR-STV was adopted by the first leaders of the State at the behest of the British in order to reassure the southern unionist minority that their political interests would be safeguarded.
PR is not at fault; it provides greater choice to the electorate and allows smaller parties and groups to be elected. It is the STV version of PR, used today in only one state in Europe, Malta.
At the MacGill Summer School of 2010, Dr Garret FitzGerald blamed the incompetence in our economic governance and, in particular, our most recent crisis, on our political system.
He called for its reform and the removal from it of the causes of localism and clientelism. So, too, did Noel Dempsey who spoke about his time in environment and local government and his efforts to reform the system by separating the functions of TDs and councillors to make each a legitimate career on the basis that an effective parliamentary system requires good local government as well.
He said his efforts had failed because TDs were afraid the relationship with their constituents would shift to the local councillors. They continued to do the job the minister had tried to free them from, and for which councillors are now remunerated, to enable them to concentrate on national governance.
As a result, according to Dempsey , we do not have a parliamentary system that makes for good governance. Courageously, he recommended our abandoning multiseat constituencies and combining PR with a list system.
Former minister Gemma Hussey said that if Ireland had competent politicians, it was despite the electoral system.
However, no government in this country can reform the political system unless it has a strong majority necessary to convince a cynical electorate. It would not be in the national interest were our two principal political parties to form a coalition.
Also at the MacGill School, historian Diarmaid Ferriter quoted from Sean Ó Faoláin who wrote in 1946: Irish politics today are not politics; our two main parties are indistinguishable not because their political ideas are alike but because neither has any political idea at all.
A strong coalition government of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael could be authoritative, reforming and innovative. It could introduce change in our electoral system and the way government is formed.
After all, these public representatives have inherited the mantle of those who fought for our independence and it would be the most powerful climax to the commemoration of 1916 were they to pool their resources in the interests of the State.
Never has there been a greater need for innovation, vision, leadership and courage on the part of our politicians as we face into a world of change and uncertainty. It is certainly not the time for a weak, indecisive, fearful government.
Minority government might be made to work with more commitment and integrity in other European countries with different political systems but here it would most likely be a temporary little arrangement. It would not be taken seriously.
As far other parties in opposition capitalising on this new situation, this is a matter for the electorate and would depend on effectiveness of the governing coalition. There is the risk that, without reform, other parties will eventually come to the fore.
This is what democracy is about.
Joe Mulholland is a former RTÉ executive, and director of the MacGill Summer School, which this year will run from July 16th to 23rd