OPINION:A restrictive nomination process and a system that is skewed toward the big parties is in urgent need of reform, writes DAVID NORRIS
AT PRESENT there are only two methods of nomination to the presidency of Ireland – one by the signature of 20 Oireachtas members and the other by majority vote of four county councils. For some time it has been recognised that this process is undemocratic, unfair and geared in favour of party candidates. Indeed, of the nine presidents since the foundation of the State, not a single one has been fully independent of party affiliation nor has any candidate won without the support of at least one of the major parties and its machinery.
The first president, Dr Douglas Hyde, was installed by the political establishment without consultation of any kind with the Irish people.
On no less than six occasions no attempt was made to allow any form of popular involvement, ie the candidate was successful either by agreement between the parties without an election or by uncontested self-nomination. Prior to 2011, the last contested election was in 1997. Had there not been an election in 2011, this would have meant that no one under 40 had had the opportunity to take part in the election of Ireland’s first citizen.
And this nearly happened. There were moves by the parties to secure the nomination of an agreed candidate thereby again bypassing the will of the people. Such efforts might well have been successful had I not intervened myself at an early stage and demonstrated that there was support among the electorate for someone with an independent background.
During the 1990s an all-party Oireachtas committee was established to review the Constitution. Among the elements to be considered was the presidency.
In 1997 Fine Gael initiated a Bill which would have permitted popular nomination by not less than 20,000 citizens. During the debate Michael McDowell TD stated that “democratic legitimacy is circumscribed currently by a nominating procedure which is seriously restrictive . . . it is clear that many people want to look beyond the political parties to find suitable candidates . . . there is a powerful argument for extending the nomination capacity”.
There was unanimous agreement that the nomination procedures for the presidency were too restrictive. It was suggested that if the party whip were relaxed, an independent candidate could secure a council nomination.
(While this is technically correct it was made clear to me in Longford County Council in 2011 that Fine Gael had issued explicit instructions not only that they were not to abstain, but that they were actively to vote against me). Doubts were raised during the review committee discussions concerning the verification of the signatures of the public.
However, recent advances in the use of computer technology should make this a comparatively simple matter.
The Bill was defeated. The matter then returned to the all-party committee. When it reported again it was stated clearly, unanimously and unambiguously that “the committee agrees with the Constitutional Review Group that the Constitutional requirements for nominating a presidential candidate are too restrictive and in need of democratisation”.
It suggested two clear alterations to the nomination process:
1. The reduction from 20 to 10 members of the Oireachtas as nominators;
2. A provision for popular nomination. The committee made a recommendation that a figure of 10,000 signatures would be appropriate. These recommendations have since lain dormant.
On December 2nd, 2011, Independent TD Catherine Murphy introduced a Bill in the Dáil which would have addressed all these points. It was again defeated.
The nomination process is not the only disincentive. No one without a lot of money or the capacity to borrow massively is in a position to stand for the presidency, and this debars all but a tiny minority of our citizens.
The current system of funding presidential campaigns requires all candidates or their parties to underwrite their own election expenses. Given the extraordinary difficulties in securing a nomination it would seem a legitimate expectation to have at least a reasonable proportion of the election expenses of duly nominated candidates covered by the State.
The current quota necessary to trigger State support is clearly set on the basis that there would be only two or three candidates. In the last presidential election, however, there were seven candidates. This creates for the genuinely independent candidate a financial risk, which can be increased to unsustainable proportions when exacerbated by a carnivorous media.
Under the existing system political parties are allowed to accept a maximum donation of €6,348.69 per annum from an individual, while an independent candidate can accept only €2,539.48, ie political parties, which already have enormous resources, are in addition permitted to receive 2½ times the financial sum from individual sponsors as compared to independent candidates.
Services provided at an election by an employee of a political party or election expenses incurred by a political party on behalf of a candidate at a presidential election are deemed not to be donations or benefits in kind. No similar arrangement exists for independent candidates. This means in effect that once a party candidate has achieved a nomination finance is automatically in place, while for an independent there is in effect only one month in which to fundraise.
During the last election it was stated by senior figures in Fine Gael that since they had never “had” the presidency it was now “their turn”.
This is essentially undemocratic. The presidency belongs to no party, it belongs always to the people. It is never the turn of any party. It is always the turn of the people.
In a recent Seanad debate I suggested two alternatives – for the Minister either (a) to bring a proposal to Government to implement the recommendations contained in the 1998 all-party report; or (b) to refer these recommendations to the Constitutional Convention. Regrettably the Fine Gael/Labour Coalition in effect boycotted the debate, providing only the minimum two speakers necessary to amend the motion.
The Government amendment was simply a vacuous recital of the present constitutional position. The contribution of the two Government speakers as well as that of the Minister entirely avoided any substantial discussion of the matter of nomination.
It seems clear the Government has set its face against democratisation. It is worth bearing in mind that the Coalition parties now have a political full house. They have a primacy over all branches of the Oireachtas – the presidency, Dáil and Seanad. (Although it must be acknowledged that in Michael D Higgins we have a President of outstanding quality and independence of mind).
They also control virtually all county councils, as well as the banks, which were acquired with the citizens’ money on behalf of the State, and there are further plans to reduce the number of local authorities.
The Taoiseach has also signalled his intention to seek powers to abolish Seanad Éireann and to reduce Dáil membership by eight TDs, thus making it virtually impossible for an independent to get an Oireachtas nomination at all. This is a situation of which we should rightly be wary.
David Norris is an Independent member of the Seanad and was a candidate in the 2011 presidential election