Head over to our T
Political Reform – key to long term recovery
Read more about: Uncategorized 
It is only right that we should look for the cause of Ireland’s particular economic crisis. After all, how else are we to repair the damage if we cannot identify the problem. Better still, how can we avoid a recurrence if we do not change whatever lies at the root of the breakdown.
Yet I think that most commentators, interest groups and politicians have failed to identify the crux of our problem. The unions blame big business, the government blames the world economy, the opposition blame the government, and for the most part the ordinary man in the street blames the bankers and the builders.
All of the above have indeed a part to play in how this sorry saga left us where we are. But as far as I’m concerned, the failure which lies at the very heart of our crisis is not one in regulation or integration into the world economy. Nor is it a failure to set remuneration for bankers which reflects accurately on value generated. No, the prime failure responsible for getting us where we are is a political failure.
Not in the narrow sense that the FF ministers who piloted the country during the boom bear sole responsibility. Certainly it is shocking that none of the said ministers has come close to even admitting that serious mistakes were made. To hear Mary Coughlan on morning Ireland it was as if she and her fellow ministers arrived in Leinster House only last week. I put this down to pure arrogance. It seems to me that the current cohort of FF ministers has been infected with a brazen, brass necked arrogance which makes them unable to contemplate, even for a second, that any one of them might be fallible. There isn’t even a scent of humility left in their tired, brain dead beings. They have spent so long in the ministerial cars and arriving in for their executive meetings that they cannot imagine any other existence. It is hard to allow that they might have any inkling of what real life is in our crumbling economy, so removed are they from the harsh winds buffetting our lives right now.
So, much as I loathe the current crop of ministers, I think that our problem as a nation is broader still. It lies in the very nature of our political system two aspects of which are critical. One is our politicial structures which are clearly unfit for the purpose of twenty first century government. The second is our political culture.
Our moribund senate is a relic of some 1930s fantasy about diversity. Our tired and tiresome Dáil has become no more than a platform for the executive to announce its latest great plans. These houses make up our legislature but it barely deserves the name. Our executive makes the law, and makes it in the face of a legislature which is uterrly toothless to influence the main thust of what the government wants. As an executive, the government is almost completely immune from scrutiny.
True, the committee system has been a useful development over the decades. But it remains ad hoc and terribly uneven. It is a tangled web of undefined and overlapping interests. And for the most part, the general public has no purchase on it. There is without doubt a huge aspect of jobs for the boys.
On the whole then, our Parliament, the Oireachtas, needs a complete overhaul.
On a broad level, it is high time we attempted to break the connection between the parish pump and national office. The parochial nature of our political system is terribly debilitating. The constituency system needs to be re-thought. It is simply not good enough to say it served us well and therefore should be left alone. All political systems should evolve to meet the new requirements of democracy. One suggestion might be that we have a mixed system, partially list and partially local constituencies. No need to rewrite the constitution here, merely to point out that our current arrangement is deficient.
Leave it all to the 800 or so state agencies – a number which ballooned during the celtic tiger. The report by TASC a few years ago showed just how many important functions have been outsourced to powerful bodies with little or no accountability. Key positions still appointed not on merit or by an independent panel – but on the basis of being one of the old boys in the, largely, FF network. Fit for purpose indeed.
Then there is local government. Well it really is a joke isn’t it. At present it doesn’t really exist – we have local administrators rather than local government. Are we still so immature that local public servants cannot be trusted with our affairs?
Perhaps, and that leads on to a question that is even more important and intractable. Our political culture. At its core lies the notion that those in power should be able to do things their way and get their associates involved no matter what. It is a culture which is all about looking after those who gave the dig out. It is about nods and winks, and we hope fewer brown envelopes than before.
But its striking feature is the absence of a sense of civic duty, the modern concept of which includes transparency and accountability. The idea of accountability is almost completely absent from our political culture. As is the idea that those in high office are there, primarily, to serve the nation and the common good.
This inward, party-and-friends-first mentality is so ingrained in our political elite that it prevents them from rising to the occasion even in a crisis. Even in this hour of need, party and friends come first, not the common good. On Morning Ireland Mary Coughlan was accused of being all about the party. In defending herself, she unwittingly underlined the truth of the allegation: she listed out her priorities, which she pressed, included the nation. “First, my party and Fianna Faíl”. Then ” the good people of Donegal”, and of course in her ministerial role, she was there to serve the nation. Basically, after Party and locals, the nation comes a poor last.
Who thinks that Brian Cowen is any different? Is he not, and probably the bulk of the shadow cabinet across from him, infected with the same virus?
With a blinkered, inward vision of politics and high office. With the absence of accountaility and integrity. With a lack of transparency and culpability, is it any wonder that the interests of those in power drifted so far from the interest of the nation at large?
This kind of paralysis breeds ineptitude by excluding merit and talent. And it leaves us bereft of the kind of leadership and ability that we so desperately need in the thick of a crisis.
The place to start reform therefore is not the banks or the finances – but the very nature of our political system
I’d certainly agree that what we are seeing now is a direct result of a political system that has failed to produce good, let alone great, politicians. I wrote something about this a month ago in relation to the near collapse of the banking system, calling for an end to party politics as it exists in Ireland now.
A big part of the problem is getting the public organised enough to force change through. That will require real popular leadership. It could come from a politician (although I can’t think of a candidate) or from someone outside of politics with a loud enough voice in the media. I really hope we find that person sooner rather than later.
Philth, your post doesn’t say how we would end party politics nor what reason you have that their absence would lead to great or even simply better people in political office? The problem is with the mentality with which people approach voting and elections. People for the most part vote for the lad or lassie who will get stuck in there and get the most treasure for them and their area. So long as people view the state coffers as some sort of pie that someone else paid for and that they just want to get as big a slice of as possible then we’re screwed. Once people start to see the state coffers as their own money that should be spent sensibly on their behalf then we might start to get somewhere.
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
An idea i had earlier today was. That instead of electing a parliment we would elect a series of commitees. I.E say 11 people to a justice commitee , 11 to a foreign affairs commitee etc etc
Probably unworkable but i like the sound of it.
Simon, I know some people who have suggested something along somewhat similar lines in that we should have departments that that are project and goal driven and measured against what their aims were. So it would be project teams with clear goals not the wishy washy stuff we have now.
Tomaltach, Great post!
Philth is absolutely right. We need some sort of populist demagogue to oversee the dismantling of our parliamentary system. In place of a number of competing political parties we could have a mass movement, or single-party State, perhaps with a numinous slogan like, oh I don’t know, “Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer”.
We can deliberate as much as we like about the current system but the fact is that this what a vast majority of the electorate want–the people want the fellow that will “DO” something for you and it is self perpetuating – FF are in power so long that they are on first name terms with all decision makers and so are in a better position to “DO” things and so get elected ad infinitum.They are also in prime position to make governing impossible for any other administration. Possibly a small improvemnt would be similar to the US system where the entire top brass change with the president— a change of elected govt could bring in a change of the permanent govt so we might not have had the delusion of a thriving economy for the past 5 years. Otherwise we are depending of a really public minded “public ” servant eg governer of the central bank, secretary of the dept of finance, financial regulator, who will tell the facts and very ,very sadly there was not one and any politician who would dare question the “thriving” economy would be anihilated.
Tomaltach: Thanks for bringing up the subject of the basis of our current political problems. To me the answer is simple. It is no surprise that Sparta, known as the first democracy, was also the most bellicose.
Democracy is based on one very simple mathematical principle, the person who applies the lowest common denominator will always get the most votes. Politically the lowest common denominator in human nature is (1) the desire to accumilate wealth and (2) self-indulgence.
A hundred years ago the nation was led by idealistic people who were willing to give their lives for others but as has happened in all previous democracies ideals soon gave way to baser instincts.
Sorry for being so pessimistic!
Tomaltach,
An excellent overview of where we are now, in terms of how we govern ourselves. Molaim!
During the 1980s economic crisis here in the Republic, two friends and I published a set of ideas on how we govern ourselves which we called A Design for Democracy (Administration Vol 34 No 2 June 1986). Our focus was the mechanism of government. Other non-web efforts followed in various forms – articles, a personal submission to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution in 1996, letters to newspapers and this effort in Business&Finance in May 1987 which follows – if the web-site will take it.
I am wryly amused to find myself posting this on a day when our current Taoiseach addressed the IMI conference and at a time when yet another government is trying to manage Commission on Taxation! Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose!
Guest Speaker
“What is wrong with this country? Denis Brosnan, chief executive of Kerry Co-op, asked in his keynote address to the 1986 IMI Conference. “Was it that the democratic process and electoral system made it impossible for leaders in government to lead with vision or was it that we continually elected people who were not capable of giving leadership?” Donal O’Brolchain asks here – Need Government Fail?
DURING THE recent election, one commentator wrote that “Since 1969, all Irish Governments, whether single party or Coalition varieties, have failed to be re-elected, principally because they were unsuccessful in their handling of the economy. All the bright rosy futures promised in a plethora of election manifestos came to nought when the heavy weight of office bore in on successive Cabinets. That eighteen-year period had seen Ireland drift towards State bankruptcy and towards ungovern¬ability.” (John Cooney, The Irish Times, February 12, 1987).
This drift is clearly not due to failures of analysis or democratic accountability, but stems from the bias against action in our government system. Some suggest that a Denis Brosnan or a Michael Smurfit would solve these problems; others want to eliminate political rivalry by having a period of “National Government”. The nub of the problem is that the machinery of government is adjusted in a way that prevents solutions being proposed and implemented in today’s complex world.
Now that the Taoiseach and leaders of other political parties have shown a willingness to review the constitution, why not start by looking at the government itself?
Our basis of government
In our system we, the people, elect a group (Dáil deputies) which in turn, elects a Taoiseach who then picks a smaller group (Cabinet) to govern for a period not greater than five years. We. who as citizens own the authority to govern, pass this authority to successively smaller groups.
There is only one path to government power in our system. This path must act as a route for the transfer of our democratic power which authorises the government to act. At the same time. this path must also serve to gather the actual know-how needed to carry out the tasks of government. These two aspects may be equated with the distinction between the words “may” and “can”, ie the ability to do something and permission to do it.
Dual aspects of power — politics and governing
Any democratic political system must be able to marshal and control both elements. Our current system cannot handle the complexity of the modern world because it cannot acquire sufficient authority and know-how at the same time.
A hypothetical example shows why this “single pathway” causes trouble. Suppose that Denis Brosnan wanted to become a Minister in the normal way. He would join a political party. attend a convention, be selected as a candidate, get well-known in his future constituency, begin a round of canvassing and clinics and then, perhaps, be elected to the Dáil. If his party forms the government (in whole or in part), if he has the right relationship with his party and its leader, if he represents part of the country that “requires ministerial representation” and several others ifs, he will become a Minister!
This series of steps does not quite fit our idea of a man like Denis Brosnan or any other high achiever. Why? Is it because. deep down, we regard the process of getting into the Dáil as mismatched to the skills we now require in Ministers?
A recent Irish Times/MRBI poll (The Irish Times, February 5 1987) shed some light on this aspect of our political culture. This found that, of the key factors which voters said would “influence them a lot” in deciding how to vote
• 75% opted for “Choosing a TD who will look after the local needs of the constituency”;
• 53% said choosing a candidate who will perform effectively on national issues in the Dáil:
• 45% said that party policies were important;
• 27% identified choice of Taoiseach as a key factor.
We use our system to select people who are good repre-sentatives — in other words, we select people to carry out the delegated authorising function. Our system is not properly shaped to select individuals who will provide the know-how which is the basis for effective and efficient government.
As Jim Hacker said. “Here I am attempting to function as a sort of managing director of a very large and important business and I have no experience of the Department’s work or in fact of management of any kind. A career in politics is no preparation for government.” (Yes Minister, Vol- I. BBC Publications. London. 1981. p28.)
A different approach
Think about the way in which a large group would organise itself to solve some problem facing it, eg club members building a new premises. The usual way. and probably the only way, is to listen to proposals by individuals or very small groups. The group, as a whole, accepts or rejects the proposals. In a more sophisticated organisation. the proposal may be debated and modified. But even then, the group achieves its purpose by listening to individuals who put forward different options.
The well-being of the whole group is crucially dependent on the special skills of these “option-makers”. It is obvious that a group which is good at finding and using such indivduals will meet the challenges of change more successfully than one which is poor at doing so.
Ministers as “option-makers”
If we look at our system in this light, it is clear that there is a
serious deficiency in the role of Minister as a producer of solutions. Ministers are always members of the majority grouping in the Dáil. This means that the examining role of the Dáil (as the Representative Branch) is very closely tied to the executive role of the Minister as option-maker. It seems inevitable that one or both roles will suffer from this link as appears to be the case in our present system. For example, Ministers often comment that their reduced poll (even loss of Dáil seat) at general elections results from being too taken up with government affairs to look after their constituencies.
Another example of the effect of this tie is the tax system — which the vast majority agrees on the need for reform. A detailed solution, good or bad, has been put forward by the Commission on Taxation, but nothing seems to be happening. Why? No one really knows and the government system resists giving any indication of the possibilities for change.
This lack of debate is caused by the link between the Minister for Finance and the majority grouping in the Dáil. Tax reform is not easy and is fraught with pitfalls. If the Minister takes a position, he is certain to upset some party colleagues. In addition, the opposition will highlight all the disadvantages (and none of the advantages!) of any proposal. It is much easier for the Government to suppress the matter by simply side-stepping the proposals which are already on the table.
Perhaps it was this type of situation that led Montesquieu, a pre-revolutionary French political commentator, to note that “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, there can be no liberty”.
The tax example shows the tendency to inertia, compounded by secrecy, which is built into the structure of the present government machine. It seems that the work of the elected representative has overwhelmed the executive/managerial function of the option-makers. Is this what happens to those leaders of whom Denis Brosnan spoke?
In Britain, serious, questions are also being raised about their machinery of government which we have copied so closely. For example, Dr David Owen, the SDP leader, recently pointed out that “In 1958, France was in a similar state of economic decline to ourselves. The lesson from France is not that we should have a powerful President… The lesson is that in France, constitutional changes preceded economic recovery. Indeed it was the pre-requisite. The change from the Fourth to the Fifth Republic was an integral part of French success building up slowly over the subsequent 30 years …’” Is this what James Cawley of Atlantic Resources had in mind during the pre-election National Business Conference organised by Fianna Fail, when he drew attention to the parallels between Ireland now and France in the late 1950s?
Towards the 21st century
Our present system has served us well, but serious difficulties haw emerged over the past twenty years. Modernisation of company law and TB eradication are issues on which there is a consensus on the aims to be achieved, but little sign either that such achievement is near. Many attribute these delays to incompetence or even corruption at the top of our political and administrative systems. The problem is more fundamental.
Statecraft or the management of public affairs is not easy in modern western democracies. Madison, one of those who drew up the US constitution two hundred years ago. put it as follows — “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: first you must enable the government to control the governed and in the next place, you must oblige it to control itself.”
Our present structure is like a see-saw, with the elected representative function at one end and the Minister/executive role at the other. Any rise in the effectiveness of one implies a drop in the other. A new structure is needed which would cut the tie so that each can be improved without weakening the other equally necessary activity.
There are very few useful changes that can be made without constitutional amendment to those articles which specify the form of government. It would be a pity to waste energy by attempting to fine-tune the 1920′s-based system by, for example, changing the electoral system or restructuring the Senate. Without much more effort, we could have a completely new model that will bring us to the year 2000 and beyond, by giving our government system the means to be successful while increasing democratic accountability. Only thus can our skills and energies be mobilised to open the paths to better standards of living and greater justice for all who wish to live and work here.Tomaltach,
An excellent overview of where we are now, in terms of how we govern ourselves.
I know some people who have suggested something along somewhat similar lines in that we should have departments that that are project and goal driven and measured against what their aims were.
You mean, just like the PMDS that public servants committed to and implemented under the last national pay agreement?
So, much as I loathe the current crop of ministers, I think that our problem as a nation is broader still. It lies in the very nature of our political system two aspects of which are critical. One is our politicial structures which are clearly unfit for the purpose of twenty first century government.
How so? We elect representatives, and those who get enough backing are then in turn elected as the Government. For all its faults, palriamentary democracy is the least-worst option open to us.
Our moribund senate is a relic of some 1930s fantasy about diversity.
Not so. ‘Diversity’, you may recall, is a post-60′s phenomenon. Our peculiar Senate composition is based on something quite different, instead arising out of early twentieth-century ideas about corporatism (as advocated at the time by Romans of both the fascist and clerical types).
Our tired and tiresome Dáil has become no more than a platform for the executive to announce its latest great plans. These houses make up our legislature but it barely deserves the name. Our executive makes the law, and makes it in the face of a legislature which is uterrly toothless to influence the main thust of what the government wants. As an executive, the government is almost completely immune from scrutiny.
Got the symptoms, but flubbed on the causes. The problems lie with (i) the development of the modern party political machine to such a degree that our ‘representatives’ (independents aside) are anything but, being just a short step away from being employees (just like Libertas/Rivada) and (ii) the astonishingly open nepotism, with seats being handed down from parent to child. You want to restore democratic accountability? Then tackle these two issues.
And put all ‘media consultants’ up against a wall.
One suggestion might be that we have a mixed system, partially list and partially local constituencies. No need to rewrite the constitution here, merely to point out that our current arrangement is deficient.
I believe that writing the Constitution would rather, um, be needed here. And is your solution for a lack of democracy actually, literally, for real to have fewer direct elections to office, thus allowing parties to have even more of those unaccountable appointments for loyal apparatchiks?
Then there is local government. Well it really is a joke isn’t it. At present it doesn’t really exist – we have local administrators rather than local government. Are we still so immature that local public servants cannot be trusted with our affairs?
Yes.
Google “Dublin County Council + corruption” for details.
Athens, not Sparta, was a democracy (for a time). Sparta was obsessed with war, not because it amused or indulged voters, but because it was a Slave owning society. The slaves hugely outnumbered the Spartans. The entire adult male Spartans were pressed into an army trained to crush rebellion. Hardly self-indulgent.
Athens, not Sparta, was a democracy (for a time). Sparta was obsessed with war, not because it amused or indulged voters, but because it was a Slave owning society. The slaves hugely outnumbered the Spartans. The entire adult male Spartan population was pressed into an army trained to crush rebellion. Hardly self-indulgent.
Simon: Thanks! I always get history nearly right. But I am saying that as democracy has failed in Athens etc it will also fail in the Western World. You can sometimes get a benevolent king or dictator but when democracy panders to selfishness and self-indulgence it never recovers. Even the current US president when you strip away the hype continues the policies (maybe even with more vigour) as his predecessor. My advice therefore is be prepared for major upheaval, maybe on a par with the major upheavals in the last century!
Sorry again for being so pessimistic.
Quick response to EWI. When I said “no need to rewrite the constitution here” I meant ‘in this post’. I was trying to identify the breakdown in the political system, not redraft an entire set of solutions. Of course it would require constitutional change.
On the party list system. Merely throwing it out as a way to break the parish pump politics. It does mean backing away from directly electing some polticians. I wouldn’t rush to abolish direct election completely but I think that on the other hand it is overrated in the sense that, I’d prefer some officials to be indirectly elected but with better mechanisms for accountability than directly elected ones without. Both would be ideal, but the idea behind some indirect election is to break the cultural paralysis which makes the local trump the national. In my opinion it would be a price worth paying. Most people agree that not all positions need to be directly elected – currently we don’t directly elect Taoiseach or ministers, they are appointed from a pool of TDs. Neither do we elect judges, ambassadors etc. So there is a who lot of indirect stuff going all. If it is structured correctly it can operate fairly well in my opinion.
But this is just one suggestion. If there are other ways to break the debilitating obsession with local issues then for sure they should be debated.
Hello all – I’d definitely agree with Tomaltach that we need to overhaul many of our political institutions if we are to improve the quality of our democracy in the medium to long term. This only makes sense – how many designs of any sort that come from the 1930s are still considered best practice today?
The problem, as i see it, is that the same people who are charged with updating are institutions are those who have come to power as a result of their operation! Some experience (most notably in New Zealand) would suggest that civil society organisations and popular pressure are vital.
So (and here comes a rather shameless plug) some colleagues in Trinity and I have organised a conference on this topic – in the arts block on June 22nd.
If you’re interested at all check out the website at: politicalreform.ie or the blog at: http://irishpoliticalreform.wordpress.com/
The idea is to use the conference as a launching pad for putting popular pressure for reform on the parties, and making some of the options accessible to the public at large. I’d love to get ideas on how we could do this better so let me know if you have any!
Matt
No harm in the plug Matt, this is the place to connect all people who are interested in the various aspects of politics.
You are right that the system is self-preserving. The kind of institutional, systemic, and indeed cultural shifts that are required will be enormously difficult and many huge obstacles lie in the way. The main political parties will resist change that they think will make their future less certain. They won’t want to rock the boat. And even if a pathway to a new paradigm could be agreed, and even if the political parties were in agreement, they would still be unlikely to invest time and effort because they would bet (probably rightly) that the general public have no great hunger for major change. This is precisely why the political reform agenda and conference are important. It’s a starting point for spreading out the debate about Irish politics. The ordinary voter is concerned about who will govern, which parties will win elections, what policies will effect them. But generally the public aren’t that concerned about questions concerning the shape of the system itself. I can see why. Put three political scientists in a room and they will emerge with differing views about a party list or powerful local government or whatever. It will never be easy to get non-specialists to take an interest and weigh up the options. But like all major political questions the key is to get the debate going so that the pros and cons can be distilled into a digestable format for the public. That is why I would be concerned about the question of how can this kind of debate be widened out? What would be the best way to get a national debate going? How can (at least some of the) political parties be persuaded of its value? So, I’d very interested in seeing these practical issues addressed. There is no point in a bunch of political scientists ( or anoraks like me ) sitting in a room thrilling over the theoretical pros and cons of new arragements. This is necessary, but in the end insufficient unless the message can be taken out into wider society.
@Matthew
“how many designs of any sort that come from the 1930s are still considered best practice today?”
The separation of powers as implemented in the US constitution is over 200 years old. It still has merit, as does the federal system.
The Swiss way of citizen’s initiative, within a highly federalised state, is over 100 years old. It too still has merit.
The Swedish way of public access to all official documents, in a centralised state is about 200 years old. It also has merit.
So does our voting system – a single transferable vote in multi-seat constituencies. It was introduced over 100 years ago.
The key question is how to shape our political system so as to limit the scope for excess by the powerful. The powerful may owe their power to position (elected or appointed), wealth, force/threat of violence, control of key resources (eg. monopolies, cartels, oligarchies), popular appeal or just having an inside track.
Limiting the scope for excess by the powerful does not stop at local, regional or national levels. It also extends to international forces – which is equally challenging.
However, Monnet pulled it off in setting in motion what became the EU. He was trying to limit the scope for excess by the powerful in both Germany and France – following two World Wars within 25 years!
@Donal,
Just a comment on our democratic heritage. Matthew can speak for himself, but as far as I’m concerned the aim of political reform isn’t to dump our democratic inheritance in toto and draft a brand new architecture from scratch. For me the objective of reform is to identify deficienies and to try to fix them.
No-one I know is proposing dispensing with such fundamentals as the separation of powers or the sovereignty of the people, the foundation stone of a republic. And I think very few would espouse getting rid of proportionality either, but that doesn’t mean we have to stick with our current model exactly.
We need to remember that even in the US there have been significant changes. It was not until 1913 for example that the Senate was directly elected – before that state legislatures chose the Senators to represent each state.
Matt,
There was an interesting radio discussion on what’s gone wrong with our electoral system on the radio during the week : Garret Fitzgerald, Noel Dempsey, Fergus Finlay were all participants.
Electoral reform is urgent, but as various posters point out, there’s no great appetite for it among the political parties and probably even less among the electorate. The debate has been going on for years and the only Minister in recent times who made proposals for change, Noel Dempsey, got precisely nowhere. I think the late Jim Mitchell of Fine Gael was also interested in reform, but again he got nowhere either.
I think reform of how we elect our public representatives needs to accompany reform of our political institutions, especially the Seanad and also the Dail. But it will be a long campaign, and a tough one, though that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried. Best of luck with your meeting.
@Tomaltach
I am in favour of enhancing our democracy as I trust that all those reading and contributing to this forum are. To achieve and maintain a “Government of the people, by the people, for the people”, many checks and balances are need on the acquisition, use and mainteance of power.
I will just touch on three
1. Separation of powers
2. Our electoral system
3. Freedom of Information
Let just raise one question, in what way would changing the electoral system limit the scope for excess by the powerful (public and private sectors) in the absence of a formal separation of powers between the Oireachtas (as legislature) and the Rialtas (as executive government) ?
1. We do not have a separation of powers between the elected representatives in the Dáil (the major part of the legislature) and the Government/Rialtas (as executive). The way this works in our system is that the Executive/Rialtas/Government controls the legislature pretty well absolutely. We are now living with the consequences of that lack of oversight by the Dáil/Seanad(Representatives)in so many spheres.
2. I think that the single transferable vote in multiseat constituencies has great advantages. I remain to be convinced that changing our electoral system without other serious changes, which also need changes to the constitution and thus referenda.
3. As an example, I set out below my response to a Sunday Tribune invitation (on 1st March 2009) to nominate the 25th person who dug the hole in which we now find ourselves. The part between // was published on Sunday 8th March last. My focus was on Freedom of Information.
“The missing 25th The Senior Public Service.
//We are all aware of the succession of reports on bad management and in at least one case, long standing illegality on the part of the central government. This incompetence has been documented in reports of Tribunals, the Comptroller and Auditor General, Dáil Committees and other inquiries. Some examples that spring to mind are:
• The illegal charging of over 300,000 people in nursing home over a 28 year period. This gave rise a major financial, legal and administrative problem that was entirely avoidable.
• The indifferent response to the Hepatitis C scandal
• the PPARS Project expenditure of €131m up to August 2005
• The €50m spent on eVoting machines
• Poor management of Integrated ticketing for Public Transport in the Greater Dublin area, on which another €50m has been spent by the public sector
• The failure to act on advice from many international bodies on the management of the economy. //
An example is that in 1999, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) expressed concern about the risks of an asset price bubble and the potential vulnerability of the banking system. The IMF Directors felt that “a peer review, particularly by supervisors from a country that had undergone a real estate boom, might be helpful.”
In all sectors, bad management, ineffectiveness and corruption thrive on secrecy, as we have learnt from journalists, tribunals and other enquiries. Freedom of information(FoI) is one means of ensuring that we, citizens of a republic, can keep an eye on our governing classes, both elected and official.
After the 2002 General Election, a group senior public servants recommended limitations to the 1997 Freedom of Information Act. The FoI act was not an issue during the General Election Campaign. Yet the Government accepted the report prepared by this group. The Secretary General of the Government chaired this group. Other members were the Secretaries General of the Departments of Entreprise, Trade and Employment, Foreign Affairs, Transport and the Secretary General (PSMD) of the Dept of Finance. A key recommendation of this report was the introduction of up-front fees for FoI requests.
In 2008, OECD reviewed the Public Management of Ireland. The report stated that “the government should reduce barriers to public information by making all requests under the FoI Act 1997 free and extend its reach to a wider range of state agencies…” (emphasis added).
Last Summer, the government appointed a Task Force to develop an Action Plan for the Public Service drawing on the analysis and recommendations of the OECD review. The Secretary General of the Government chaired this 9 person group. Other members were the Secretaries General of the Departments of Education and Science, Health and Children, Environment Heritage and Local Government and the Secretary General (PSMD) of the Dept of Finance. Another member was a former Secretary-General of the Department of Entreprise, Trade and Employment. In summary, 6 (two thirds) of the nine members were or had been senior public servants.
In November 2008, this group did not make any recommendations on either reducing the FoI fees or extending the scope of FoI.
During a similar time of crisis in this republic , a highly respected public servant noted in 1953 that “The success of any public policy depends no less on its intrinsic merits than on the quality of the public service that executes it… The civil servant’s task is at any time a difficult one; it will not be lightened if he fails to bring the public closer into his confidence…In shaping the Civil Service to the satisfactory discharge of its present-day responsibilities, the public may reasonably expect to know how the official mind works and to understand the thought that animates it”. Patrick Lynch. Studies. 42(1953). p. 259-260 (emphasis added)
With Fol, we can also see the quality of the official mind, eg, the papers of the Tax Strategy Group; the fees for those managing the Bertie bowl. Without FoI, how can we be sure that low standards do not exist in high places?
The current Senior Public Service appears completely unwilling to bring in one key measure that would enable us to be have confidence in their competence. They clearly value secrecy as a means of covering up inept management and as such, bear a major responsibility for the hole. The Senior Public Service has shown that it does not value limiting the scope for excess by favouring one method among a whole series of checks and balances needed in government in a democracy.
The Public Sector Task Force has failed to contribute to the design a system of government so that
• options being considered are known to the public, in advance of decisions being taken
• failures can be spotted more quickly
• public officials (elected and appointed) are clearly accountable for both success and failure.
This cast of mind allows for the continuance of the kind of ineffective management outlined above. This cast of mind dug the whole just as much as the other 24 people put forward in your article on Sunday 1 March last.”
Thanks for the responses guys and sorry for the delay in getting back – things got a little crazy in the last week or so trying to get the conference sorted!
The reference to 1930s engineering was not a call to abandon foundational ideals, nor was i trying to say that there are no good institutions/ideas that go way back, but rather to illustrate that we need to be as open-minded about innovation and change in the political administrative sphere as we are in other areas of thinking.
I don’t agree with all of Donal’s suggestions for reform as outlined – but much of that is down to a personal preference for a form of governance that allows the people’s representatives, determined by free and fair elections of course, to exercise sovereignty in accordance with popular preferences, over a system that opposes one branch of government against another, and can lead to stagnation, logrolling of ‘pork’ projects, and deadlock – especially in Ireland: a small, unitary state with a relatively homogeneous population.
Enhancing freedom of info is absolutely vital, however, as without knowing how and why decisions are made the people cannot hope to make an informed choice when voting. Reforming the public service is another priority that i would agree with.
I think that Veronica and Tomaltach make valid points in saying that moving towards any sort of reform is a difficult challenge. The problem is not just the obduracy of the system, but also the limitless capacity of experts, academics and anoraks (your phrase, not mine!) to disagree on these things! Liam Weeks made an interesting point yesterday when he said that there is no such thing as a ‘best’ political system, otherwise it would be adopted by pretty much every country and comparative political scientists like myself would be out of a profession!
However, we cannot use this as an excuse to throw our arms in the air and just accept things as they are – i think that there are at least some suggestions that even us nerdy types could broadly agree on – such as enhanced FOI, clearer role for local govt, greater transparency and more critical evaluation of policy in our ministerial departments and so on.
Anyway – I’d like to try to keep some of the momentum from the conference going into the medium/long-term. I think that the web is the forum to do that, it facilitates the kind of informed and in-depth debate that has to accompany any call for change – and the networking/viral characteristic allows it gain the kind of numbers necessary for any such call to have legitimacy. I had some interesting discussion to this end with conference attendees yesterday – but would love to hear suggestions from this forum on how best to use the web to move forward.