Head over to our T
Round-up and Review of the Conf on Political Reform
Read more about: Academia, Blogging, Columns, Comment, Conferences, Democracy, Feature Gallery, Government, Ireland, Irish Politics 
Much of page 12 in today’s Irish Times is given to follow-up articles on yesterday’s conference on political reform. Like most conferences, it had its good parts and…
I spent the day in a bunker-like lecture hall deep in the bowels TCD’s Arts Block listening to highly-informed journalists and academics. The vast majority of the speakers were either insightful, educational or entertaining – some were all three. I thought Michael Marsh (TCD, ‘Do our elections do what we want them to?’) and Michael Gallagher (also TCD, ‘The role of the TD’) stood out amongst the academics.
As one may have expected the academics’ presentations were slightly more analytical and evidence-based than the media types. However it should also be noted that Fionnan Sheehan of the Irish Independent gave one of the more engaging talks of the day. He was responding to Marsh. Sheehan bridged the gap between journalistic and academic by speaking from his experience as a political journalist but also providing statistical evidence to back up his opinions.
Professor John Coakley’s presentation ‘Political Culture in Ireland, where can we go from here?’ has been rejigged into an opinion piece on the aforementioned page 12. Elaine Byrne’s article beside Coakley’s is something of a round-up of the conference’s more interesting commentary – worth reading.
The round-table discussion at the end of the day was interesting. Garrett Fitzgerald’s in-depth knowledge of all-things-Ireland never fails to amaze. Vincent Browne and Donal O’Brochlain put forward separate detailed cases for reforms that they believed were required to improve how the country is governed. A member of the lecturing staff from NUI Maynooth whose name escapes me brought attention to the low female-to-male ratio in the Dáil. It was a highly informed and, at times, animated discussion. However, something about it didn’t sit right with me.
About half-way through his four or five minute speech a well known TV-presenter-and-journalist-who-cannot-be-quoted-directly-because-the-discussion-was-under-Chatham House-rules paused mid-sentence to say…
“… of course this is all fantasy, the whole day is fantasy, none of this will make a slight bit of difference. None of this will ever be implemented, it’s just fantasy”
[Note: Not a direct quote, paraphrased].
It irks me that that attitude seemed have been accepted by the conference as a whole. I – rather nervously – said that it irked me during the discussion when the opportunity arose. There’s no point gathering some of the country’s most respected members of the intelligentsia to speak about political reform if you’re not going to least attempt to follow through on the discussion. I asked why we simply accepted the aforementioned audience member’s fantasies as fantasies, I felt that in taking that attitude the conference as a whole was simply talking-the-talk…
One of the speakers earlier in the day had lamented that the Irish electorate was complacent, that they appeared to want change but weren’t prepared to vote for it – yet it seemed to me that the conference was behaving in almost exactly the same way. It seemed to have been accepted by those in attendance that the conference would split at the day’s end, journalists would return to the pub newsroom, academics would return to the lectern, civil servants would melt back into their department and politicians would continue politicking. Would we all forgot about what was suggested then in fifty years time do it all again? C’mon…
While my observations were somewhat dismissed initially by some sections of the audience (admittedly, they are somewhat idealistic) but they did seem to be taken on board by the organisers and panel members afterward. I had suggested that the political scientists mirror the economists and start a group blog, afterward I was told that there are now plans afoot to do so.
Hopefully they weren’t simply humouring me.
To say I’m excited about the idea that Irish political scientists will begin publishing online is an understatement. Giving the public the opportunity to read, learn from and respond to the arguments advocated by respected and impartial political scientists is something that lays the foundations for reform. It’s hugely democratic. Yesterday was the first time I’ve sat in a university lecture hall and I believe I’ve had more educational opportunity than most, this discussion needs to be brought out of the bunker and arguably beyond The Irish Times. A blog is a step in the right direction. As one member of the audience said – the electorate needs to be informed before the country can be reformed.
Hopefully the poli-sci group will take to the medium, it would be awful to allow the debate fall from the public sphere with the final opinion piece in the Irish Times this week. The most-informed voices in the field need to put their heads above the parapet in the same way the economists have done. The beauty of blogging is that you can stick to a niche, allowing suggestions, theories and debate to gather snow over the course of time. By noticing that fact the economists have garnered amazing media attention and impact the mainstream news commentariat. The Irisheconomy.ie blog has become one of the most informative online publications in the country in part because of the quality of the posts and in part because the language used can be understood by the average reader, we need the same from the political scientists.
It was argued yesterday that the economy is in a bad way because it reflects our political culture – if we’re taking that as truth then we need our political scientists writing consistently now more than ever. We need them to do so somewhere newspaper journalists and citizens can access easily, so they can cite the articles and develop an opinion. If done correctly this will foster conversation around the topic – like I said, we can’t afford to think that we come back in 50 years and have this conversation again…
I’d happily help the people involved yesterday set up a decent wordpress blogging system. I’d suggest they give anyone who they deem to be informed on relevant topics a username and password, let them write - treat people who leave comments as peers, discuss, debate, converse. Irishelection.com will do what we can to send traffic their way, get in touch.
To borrow a term from the politicians - it’s in the public interest.
In conclusion, an interesting and informative conference that I wholly commend and thank Elaine Byrne, Matthew Wall and Jane Suitor for organising – but it will have been a waste of time if the discussion doesn’t continue in the public sphere.
Fingers crossed.
Hi Mark, good meeting you on the day and thanks for your contributions. The conference was organised in a three week period. This saving the world lark can be hard going at times so with another few weeks we should have it sorted.
Our blog prior to conference http://irishpoliticalreform.wordpress.com/ will in the next while become a more professionalised forum for contributions on issues which arose at the conference. Jane, Matt and I hope that the conference will provide an impetus for further conferences with a sharper focus with a similar format to occur.
In the meantime, what are you going to do to change the world?
http://www.politicalreform.ie
Thanks for the summary, Mark. Once there was no WiFi, my interest in twittering from the conference hall withered!
For info, the NUIM person was Mary Murphy, former Labour Party Councillor on Dublin City Council. She retired from politics two years ago because she, like many other Councillors, found it wasn’t possible to balance the full time job of a Councillor with a full time job that actually paid a full time salary.
Thanks for the comment Elaine,
Just to clarify briefly – this post was not a criticism on the conference – which I found to be educational, informative and engaging. Once again I thank and congratulate you and your colleagues for organising it. It’s a plea to those who attended and spoke at the conference not let the discussion fall by the wayside.
I’m not saying the world needs to be saved, I’m saying if the way our country governed needs to be changed then the conversation around changing it needs to be on-going. I know it’s not going make headway in the next five, ten, fifteen or even twenty years but it’s never going to get anywhere at all unless non-politicos are aware there is an informed group who want change. The best way to gradually make people aware there is a want for change is to speak about it in the same location, online or otherwise, consistently. Whereas the conference on Monday was excellent, it is not going to attract anyone but the most politicised, so there is an element of ‘preaching to the converted’ and therefore a dilution of it’s potential impact. Blogging through use of links helps people who would not normally find their way here, find their way here – some thus become gradually more politicised. This can only be positive. Also, by the simplicity of the software and ease of use it makes talking about a topic consistently less time consuming than ever. Therefore I encouraged the panel members to blog consistently – even if it is only to maintain and foster conversation (and attract more attendees, and more diverse attendees) for the next conferences you referred to in your comment.
What am I doing to change the world?
I’ll say I’m not looking to change the world. I’m trying to change my world more than ‘the world’. How am I doing that? By educating myself about how this country works. By attending conferences like the one on Monday. By reading material like the book produced by Transparency Ireland that you so excellently researched. By studying the transcripts of the Tribunals that I was too young to attend. By reading the informed commentary on this blog, certain other blogs and in newspapers and current affairs magazines written by those more educated and informed than myself. By generally looking to gradually improve myself and my knowledge of the workings of this country with a view to being part of the push for incremental change when I’m informed enough to do so.
While I may be more knowledgeable on the how the country is governed than most of my peers, I’m a fool compared to any member of the panels on Monday, and most of the audience. I’d have little influence because of that fact. If Vincent Browne wanted to push senior politicians on political reform quoting “Mark Coughlan, the blogger from Irish Election” is worthless, however quoting “Michael Marsh, Political Scientist in TCD on the X blog ” or even “Elaine Byrne PHD” is something that is far harder for the politician to ignore. Those names have authority and thus the ability to change ‘the [Irish political] world’ in whatever small way that ‘Mark Coughlan’ does not as present.
I’m not saying you and your colleagues can change the world, I’m saying that you and your colleagues have more influence on it [read: Irish political world] than I. Maybe if those who have even a small influence on it now can get the ball rolling then those in your position in fifty years time can put it in the back of the net. We have to start somewhere, at present the debate is miles from the voter.
I’m currently advising elements of RTÉ on how they handle their online interaction – I’d happily do the same for any group of people from the conference who wish to contribute to a blog, if they wish to listen to my advice. Feel free to give my email to anyone. I’ll do what I can to amplify whatever small influence those at the conference have collectively, maybe that’ll be how I’ll change the [wider] world in my own minuscule way.
I couldn’t attend but listened to many of the presentations on the Web. I think the important point is to have the general discussion and get those who are interested to think about our political system and culture. The conference is a good start. There can be no saving the world of course, but the idea that we can tailor our political system in order to deliver a better service to its masters, the people, must surely be valid.
First step is to identify what are the main failures in the system? (poor decision making, too heavily biased towards short-termism, local trumps national, speed of response, ability to follow through and deliver, use of resources, and so on.)
Then of course the suggestions for fixes. But these need not always come in the form of major architectural changes. An incremental evolution is fine if it can be sustained. I think in order to convince political parties and other interested groups, not least the general population, of the need for change, we need to be able to show clearly why the current failures are costly. I think it was Peter Murtagh who mentioned the road being repaired in a rural area. The voters were happy to elect a person knowing that their road would be fixed, but by preserving the clientelist system they ensure that if their candidate fails, they will not have the road repaired!
This is only one example. How do we demonstrate the flaws in our political system and culture that gave rise to some of the most significant decisions in recent times? Providing that link is crucial. Having said that, in order to inch forward you don’t necessarily need to convince the majority of the electorate. Sometimes small but significant changes can be wrought if the political elite can be persuaded that they are necessary and won’t be disastrous for their political futures. Correct me if I’m wrong but, over the last twenty years, I don’t recall any widespread popular demand for reform of local government, yet small important changes were made, like removing the dual mandate, and we are going to have elected mayors and so on.
I’m a country boy and I recall when I first came to the city I saw bridges being built, roads upgraded, new amenities being constructed and this seemed to go on forever. When, I wondered, will they ever finish this place? But of course the point is there is no finishing point. Only constant development (I meant that in its positive sense). Democracy is the same. It should always be considered a work in progress. It will always be changing anyway whether we like it or not. What we need to do is stay aware of what changes might be best, and continually make the case for improvement. There is no destination – only a journey. The job of the political scientist is to try to ensure that we try to stay on the best possible route.
In response to Elaine’s comment and her articles about the need to move away from PRSTV etc. I welcome the conference and looking at the speakers and reading some of the articles after it looks like it was very interesting and worthwhile and well done to all involved. However, much of this debate about political reform is prompted by unhappiness with the state of our economy and society. That is why there is so much of this debate now whereas there wasn’t much a couple of years ago when all seemed well and a majority were happy with Fianna Fail.
Maybe the way to achieve the change Elaine would like to see is not political reform (albeit certain reforms would be welcome). The state of our economy and our society is the result of political choices and those political choices were made by politicians and more importantly political parties voted for by the voters. Rather than political reform being the answer to a percieved problem with who the voters voted for, maybe the answer is to use those traditional tools of political debate and analysis to help persuade voters as to why they should vote differently. There is much about the call for a different electoral system such as a move away from PRSTV that is motivated by an unhappiness with the way voters use their vote – so proposals are made to move away from PR to restrict the choices voters can make in elections. But PRSTV is the most democratic system you can have, particularly as was argued in an article from the conference in yesterday’s Irish Times when it involves constituencies large enough to ensure the results are proportionate.
As any politician knows the really hard task is not political reform but using your powers of persuasion with the voter to get them to change their voting patterns because the political approach you are putting to them will make their lives better. If we believe everyone is equal and that democracy is worthwhile it is surely better win over the votes of voters on the basis of sound argument rather than meddling with the voting system. Rather than the debate focusing so much on the need for political reform as a means to address the bad state of our economy and society, more people need to step up to the plate and use those political tools of debate and analysis to persuade people why they should vote differently. That happened in the States. The people were persuaded to stop voting for a right wing republican for President and instead vote for a left wing Democrat. They did not need to reform the political system to get a person with Obama’s political outlook elected.
This task is primarily the task of political activists. But journalists and political scientists and commmentators should play a role too in helping voters to choose and vote well by relentlessly pointing out the differences in political ideas and policies between the parties and why those differences matter and how it is the political policies that are implemented that determine the type of economy and society we will live in.
Joanna,
I think your point is a fair one: the call for political reform seems to have more energy now that we have hit a crisis. And that if people want change they ought to do so by getting stuck into the politcal debate about policy and parties so that a different kind of government might emerge. In some repects, its true also that when things go wrong people tend to blame the system.
Yet I think that many people – not just political scientists – see flaws right throughout our political system that render it less effective than it should be. You mention PRSTV. While I have heard many suggestions about electoral reform, by far the most of them were in favour of preserving proportionality. Indeed many of those suggesting change here – such as Garret Fitzgerald – would like to increase the proporionality of our system (our system is not at all fully proportional). The basis for arguments in terms of electoral change aren’t all that closely tied up with the economic slump, rather they stem from the way in which the politics of the parish pump dominate over national issues. This is a fair point, and again, most sensible commentators suggest changes which retain access to members of parliament, but that there are ways to say, elect members who aren’t as dependent on fixing potholes and getting medical cards.
But electoral reform is only one part of the debate on political reform. There are many other serious issues, from the role and composition of the senate, to the effectiveness of local government, to scrutiny of legislation, to transparency and, the area where Irish politics is particularly weak: accountablity.
True, the Irish people might choose a new government with new policies: but (for example) if Labour were in government, there is little chance that all of a sudden we would have a new culture of accountability. Labour ministers would settle in to their roles and quickly discover and use the broad scope for evasion that is inherent in our system. This is not a criticism of Labour, and I’m not talking about sleaze, just plain old accountability. See across the water, in Britain, where a whole bunch of heads rolled over the expenses affair. But resignations are a rarety here, whether for huge blunders, serial incompetence, or just bringing senior office into disrepute.
So reform is not necessarily about tearing apart the current system, it is about making improvements. There is always room for improvement in the system and given that making those improvements is always resisted, it is necessary to work hard to make anything happen. The general policy debates and so on should and will continue anyway, but that doesn’t preclude debate about reform.
Tomaltach,
Professor Michael Gallagher TCD has made the point that the disproportionately that could be given rise to by having too small constituencies does not happen in practice because voters provide a counter balance when they actually vote because the presume in voting that the system is weighted in favour of Fianna Fail! In any case the way to ensure proportionality and keep the PRSTV and multi seat constituencies is to make our constituencies bigger.
That point that the too small the numbers of seats per constituency is compromising our PRSTV systems proportionality was made by Professor John Coakley at the above conference and in an opinion piece in the Irish Times on Tuesday. If you do what Garret Fitzgerald suggests and have a mixed system including people elected on lists you won’t stop people contacting those elected on local or national issues. Voters expect to be able to contact their politicians in this way. Voters all over the world expect it. Their expectations are not going to change it is simple as that. If any one thinks that a voter in America that contacts Obama is ignored, however small or seemingly insignificant the issue, I can almost guarantee they are wrong. As Tip O’Neill famously said All Politics is Local and it is no different in Ireland to any one else.
Finally it is a myth that people like myself spend our time fixing potholes. And all of the constituency work I do and all the clinics make me a better public representative and legislator rather than working from some elite ivory tower that people like Gemma Hussey would prefer to see us working from. Gemma was on Vincent Browne last night and talked about when she was in the Dail that politicians used to contribute to legislation and have amendments made to legislation. She seemed to think that does not happen now. But of course it does as it always has. As a Senator and T.D. I have often had amendments that I have put forward on bills being discussed in the chamber accepted by the Government side. Not only that but legislation has been initiated by the opposition too and accepted by the Government. One recent example of such legislation was initiated by Pat Rabbitte on foot of an issue that was brought to his attention by consituents of his at one of his clinics. But though that happens, most of the media and the commentators are not much interested in that unfortunately. But often many voters,particularly if the have an interest in the legislation concerned, are.
Joanna,
You say “voters expect to be able to contact their politicians in this way.” That is true. And I totally agree with your point about the Ivory tower. I think that continual contact with real problems and ordinary people makes better legislators not worse, and I would be totally opposed say to having our legislators elected or working in a way that insulates them in Leinster house. That said, we often see rushed legislation and an empty Dáil chamber. We know a bill has gone through other stages, but it does seem as if the Dáil itself is bordering on redundant (is the Dáil really successful at holding the goverment to account? Surely our executive pretty much gets away with what it wants.) Plus, even if it is better to have good on the ground knowledge among our legislators, surely this doesn’t mean they _all_ have to have clinics. And you mention the Senate – where excellent work is done by certain members but no one could argue with the fact that the senate is an overflow tank for unelected candidates for the Dáil who then spend more time working up a local profile than examining legislation or government policy.
Back to contact with locals. Again, I think it is generally a positive rather than a negative. You talk about the myth of potholes etc. Perhaps in rural Ireland it is different. I have talked to many people who’ve been to TD clinics in Donegal. Top of the list are things like – getting a medical card, asking for planning refusals to be overturned, and even, getting a passport. These are all real needs that people have and I don’t dismiss them, but they are demands which illustrate that there are other parts of the system not working. Why is there not a helpful and accessable local contact in the HSE to assist with medical cards? Why a TD? Same for the other items. These are issues that should be dealt with elsewhere – through citizens information, or a planning appeals office or whatever.
True there are more genuine issues, perhaps tough situations with a school or with some agency which just isn’t wide enough in the community to have support. But from what I see and hear, I cannot agree that a huge chunk of some TDs’ time isn’t eaten up by issues they shouldn’t have to be dealing with.
Tomaltach,
Some T.D’s don’t have clinics. But you still get the phonecalls, meet the people on the street, get the emails, attend the local meetings you are invited to. The problem with legislation being rushed is nothing to do with clinics. The Dail could be reformed to ensure more time is spent on legislation (and by the way often a lot of time is spent going through legislation especially in the Seanad but also in the Dail committees). Reform of how the Dail does it’s business can happen irrespective of what way we elect people to the Dail. Some parties are stronger in relation to having policies to reform the Dail, make politics more transparent, accountable and participatory and those who want Dail reform should keep that in mind when they vote in General elections.
I would reiterate in America, in Britain, in any place where the voters elect named people on a ballot paper, as opposed to faceless party apparatchiks via a list system, politicians spend a lot of time following up issues raised with them by the voters. They spend no more nor no less time than us Irish Politicians in that regard. Ask a British MP about how much time they spend with their constituents, at meetings, at “surgeries” and they spend a huge amount of their time in that regard. And they don’t have multi seat constituencies nor PR and they don’t have to worry about competition from independents or the likes of the Socialist Party or the Green Party. And look at all the problems coming out in relation to their Parliament. If it is the case that politicians elected via a list system spend less time dealing with issues brought up with them by voters that would only be because they are beholden to the party leadership or at best the party members. That is not very democratic and nor do I believe you would get better people elected that way. Michael Gallagher also makes the point in the same article I referred to above that before ever PRSTV was introduced in Ireland Irish politicians followed up constituency issues. That type of work by politicians has traditionally been expected by the voters of politicians in Ireland and if we got rid of PRSTV it would still be expected of politicians, just as it is in other countries.
The problems we face in our country are not the result of individual T.D’s being asked to chase up a medical card or any other issue. They are not the result of PRSTV operated in our multi seat constituencies. They are the result of particular political policies and the political philosophy that lies behind those policies. And the sooner more people realise that (and I think many voters did when they voted left in the recent elections) the better. And there is an element about the debate about political reform as the solution to our problems as to it raising red herrings in that regard.
Joanna,
These are fair points all, and I certainly appreciate your input. I think in a discussion like this it is vital to hear from practioners.
Tomaltach,
Thanks and your points are fair points too. It is a good discussion and unlike TV or Radio slots there have been on this issue there is plenty of opportunity through comments to tease out the arguments.