Head over to our T
All politics are local (but some are more local than others)
Read more about: Comment, Ephemera, Government, Grassroots 
This post stems from a discussion in the comments section under ‘All politics is local‘. We were comparing and contrasting the UK and Irish systems in terms of how rooted politicians must be within their local constituencies. I think there is significant difference between the two jurisdictions, to some degree due to FPTP (First Past The Post) but also due to population sizes.
The system in UK will often see ‘heavy hitters’ or party favourites being positioned within safe seat constituencies to be assured of election. This can mean that Ministers for example are relatively free to concentrate on national matters, whilst a local party machine gets on with the ground work. The constituency being either red or blue (or sometimes yellow) is more or less taken for granted as a loyal stronghold in any event.
Similarly party HQs (Lab and Cons) will often operate a list system, where aspirants are on a waiting list, and are then slotted into various constituencies as seats become available. The link between ‘home turf’ of the constituency and the representatives is far more tenous than here. Whilst there are cases like the Prime Minister himself, who is a passionate and proud son of his Kirkcaldy constituency, his predecessor Blair had never set foot in Sedgefieldprior to the by-election. Also, due to the sheer size of parliament and the country, by elections come up so often that these more mobile candidates seldom have to wait too long to find a suitable opening. In fact, in the UK system, what is sometimes done is that new candidates will be ‘blooded’ in a ‘no hope’ constituency where a seat of the opposite colour comes up, before been given a real crack at a safe seat of their own. Tony Blair was ran in a Tory stronghold (Beaconsfield), purely for campaign experience before being allowed a proper go of it in the Labour seat of Sedgefield. What this does mean in practice is that the party convention is the real election rather than the public vote.
In Ireland opportunties really only come up, once every couple of years, if even, with Council being a ususal prerequisite for a Dáil run, and whilst ocassionaly parachute celebrities feature, generally the candidate will be rooted very deeply within that particular geographic area before even being considered a viable runner. The idea of party favourites flitting from one constituency to the next would be unlikely to work well within the Irish electoral context. The likes of Mary Lou or even Joe Higgins demonstrate that some mobility is possible around the Dublin (or possibly Cork) city constituencies but it is still unlikely to succeed outside those large urban centres. Within the Irish system, the situation remains that having a large local network cemented around a particular area remains the formula for electoral success.
Interestingly both jurisdictions, despite the different approaches and voting methods (FPTP and PR), have produced similar results. The parties all end up chasing the middle, that all important and much sought after floating voters of the centre ground. In the UK with so many seats a foregone conclusion in either direction, the real battle is after the handful of centre lying ‘swing’ constituencies. Whilst in Ireland despite a widely differing system, in the form or porportinoal representation, the centre ground is also chased to attract those all important transfers. Then in the US we end up with RINOs and ModDems (alignments within the parties almost closer to the opposite side). Maybe the perfect electoral system is still a work in progress.
“The system in UK will often see ‘heavy hitters’ or party favourites being positioned within safe seat constituencies to be assured of election. This can mean that Ministers for example are relatively free to concentrate on national matters, whilst a local party machine gets on with the ground work.”
Errr…I think you’ve got that situation a bit out of kilter. In the UK parties do operate shortlists for safe seats for those they think might eventually become heavy hitters but the decision still lies with the local associations. It is not the case that ministers as such are selected for safe seats. Unless in the rare occasion their existing seat disappears. There are plenty of examples of MPs who were from marginal, very marginal in the case of Jacqui Smith. The key difference between here and there is that whether in marginals, or safe seats and even in by-elections that the voting people are more interested in someone who will make a shakes of being an MP in all its facets and in the policies of the party they are voting for than is the case here where people are more focused on only part of the job of a TD and on where they come from and who their people are than the party policies.
“It all comes back to the importance of having a large local network cemented around a particular area to cement Irish political success.” i.e. come from a big family or be well known through your existing work publican, undertaker, auctioneer. Great things to have to help you get elected but not necessarily the skills needed to be a good all round TD.
Daniel, agree on most points. (Granted with Ministers, it may not always work that way, but in the main. E.g. the Tories dropped Michael Portillo into Chelsea on his comeback. The question was not whether he could get elected in the bluest of blue blood seats, but whether the local Tory party would grant it to him. They did.)
Personally I would prefer the UK system. The piece is a lament rather than an endorsement.
Some of the traditionally safest Labour seats in England and Scotland aren’t regarded as safe any more, or so I’m told, even where the Labour majority increased in the last GE! Arguably, there should be no safe seats in our PR-STV system either, although local loyalty and national profile go a long way towards making certain individuals as safe as houses.
I don’t know as much as I should about the way FF and FG, or the Greens, choose their candidates, and how much influence party HQ may have on the selection, even up to the point of telling sitting TDs that they won’t be on the ticket next time out. The Labour Party general council has always had the right to impose candidates – I remember one local party activist who always and ever referred to a particular TD as ‘the imposed candidate’ even after the deputy had served two terms in the Dail! – and have done so in the teeth of fierce opposition from the local party organisation, but only in constituencies where there is a weak and unsettled candidate selection. When the leadership decided on a two candidate strategy for every constituency where they already had a sitting TD, which was either in 1969 or ’73 I think, they were told where to go and what to do with their strategy in no uncertain terms by Dan Spring in North Kerry, for one, and there really wasn’t much they could so about it.
One of the reasons I’ve always been uncertain about the introduction of a list system for a proportion of Dail seats is because I believe it would hand over too much power to party apparatchiks and would also mean that only the well-behaved and compliant would likely qualify for inclusion. But I’m open to persuasion if someone puts up a good enough argument for it.
As for our present system, I think one of the main problems is that the tendency has been towards the formation of three seat constituencies, which rather defeats the point of PR-STV. Certainly it makes it very difficult for smaller parties to gain a foothold or maintain it from one election to the next especially if there is a major swing in favour of either one of the main parties. In three seaters, the top three in first preferences usually end up being the ones elected. In the early years of the State, I think there were some constituencies that returned six or even seven deputies which is what PR-STV was designed for.
We urgently need reform though, because we definitely need to have as many top calibre candidates as possible, from as wide a background as possible, contesting for political office. The present system in all parties seems to act as a disincentive to ‘new blood’.
“Personally I would prefer the UK system. The piece is a lament rather than an endorsement.”
As someone who is currently studying in the UK, I can only say that I really, really don’t want us to have their system.
I would suggest that stagnation in Ireland is mostly a result of our political culture, and the UK system would only exacerbate the problem for us. Politics in the UK is more stagnant than Ireland, despite the greater presence of interesting political activity in the grass roots. The FPTP system, just allows it to go nowhere.
That said, there is plenty we could learn from them – just not what voting system we should use.
The localisation of our TDs, as compared with MPs in the UK, is a result of the dumbing down of our county councils. If we are to have genuine national parliament elections where high calibre candidates can run on a national issue, then we must disenfranchise them from local politics. Therefore we must give more powers and responsibilities back to our councillors.
If we did this, then we could abolish PRSTV for national elections and run purely with a national list system. The most appealing and popular “national” parties would be elected and not the local champion who may not have national interests at heart, namely Jackie Healy Ray. His work could be taken away from the Dail and carried out by Kerry CoCo in fairness.
I believe we have too many councils. Amalgamate them into regional assemblies along with the county civil servants being enlarged into regional authorities in my opinion. The local authorities would benefit from economy of scale by administering greatly enlarged areas. Give the councillors larger constituencies, let there be fewer councillors overall. Remove the umbilical link between TD and councillor by trying to elect fewer, better paid and busier councillors who worry about larger regional issues.
town councils should be abolished.
The parochiality within national politics is a tribal remnant and a rural phenomenon more than urban; the extent of Drumcondra man’s local concerns must be anachronistic in a modern leader.
Dukes was judged by how little he did for Kildare.
Will Cowen be judged in Offaly next time by his performance as Taoiseach; If he is judged harshly in Offaly next time then it will be a milestone in the political landscape.
If he is nt then it will show that the electorate outside the pale at any rate are still locally-focused.
Incidentally I have heard it said that john OD will retain his popularity in kerry because down there they reckon he was a victim of a Dublin conspiracy.
I do feel that our pR system is producing electoral paralysis. I dont know what the answer is – I dont know enough political science – perhaps a list system so people learn not to EXPECT the TD to push for the county over national concerns. The Healy rae carry on is actually undemocratic on a wider level. But thats the game asit is.
marc Coleman has a chapter in his book titled electile dysfunction which I have just bought and look forward to reading.
@Ian What are the problems that you see in the UK system? Is it that FPTP “safe seats” render many elections a foregone conclusion?
@James Lawless
Partially it is that, but also the fact that it completely fails to reflect peoples preferences.
(Anecdotal evidence alert)
Nearly all the people I have spoken to about politics here have expressed the idea that they must vote for Labour/Tories, regardless of their preferences for any other party.
(phew, anecdotal evidence over)
For instance many of the people who express a differing preference say tey would vote for the Liberal Democrats. But they will not win an election, despite being a large party, on almost the same scale as Labour/Tories. The FPTP system completely precludes them form doing so. It encourages people to vote only in order to keep out the party they don’t want.
THAT is not the way to run a voting system.
Despite its failings, our system allows me to vote for my preference first, whilst also facilitating my ‘safe’ vote i.e. Fine Gael/Fianna Fail. My views are represented, whilst assuring me that I can keep out the Tory equivalent. In the UK they don’t have that assurance, and must only put in a ‘safe’ vote.
David Milliband’s website is at the link below and if any one commenting here thinks that he is the type of politician that focuses on National Politics to get elected have a look through his website and think again.
David is the MP for South Shields.
Who is he rooting for on his home page? Non other than South Shields born and bred Joe McElderry winner of X Factor. The newsletters he archives on the site – All about working for South Shields.
So MPs don’t do clientelism? This is what David has to say about that on his website:
“In addition to the duties, I perform in South Shields, I also take up
literally thousands of individual cases each year ranging from school admissions to broken paving stones.Please do not hesitate to contact me if you think I can help you”.
The activities he tells his constituents about in one of the many Community Newsletters he archives on his website:
“David meeting a resident at Sutton Hall, On a Walkabout with Rick O’ Farrell from South Tyneside Council discussing plans for the town centre. On the beat with the Police in Biddick Hall. The wonderful WRVS ladies, delivering a lesson tothe pupils of Ashley Primary School and Northumbrian Water’s £3 million investment for the Parkway Estate”
MPs spend their weekends doing surgeries (clinics as we call them). They do it more than us T.Ds because of the very fact that only one MP can be elected per constituency and if they want to be sure to be (1) the candidate (2) elected they never forget the reality that “All Politics is local”.
http://www.davidmiliband.info/
It is true as Ian outlines that in the UK the lib dems get the squeeze; with a PR system they would historically have been a viable third force.
Our system is fairer in that sense. It allows for more shades of opinion in the Dail also, even though those opinions are well diluted in coalition.
But leaving PR aside would we have more effective TDs if we gave Councillors more power while reducing their numbers and widening their constituency areas.? Or would some Israeli style list system be better or worse?
In Israel there is way more fragmentation and a recently a Labour MK who has just quit complained to me that lists mean no accountability of the individual memmbers of parliament to the voters.
No system is perfect but the most important thing is actually that it is the voters prerogative to vote for who they want and we should not meddle in that.
Not to mention the fact that the voters themselves twice voted in referendum against changing from multi seat pr-stv. The people are sovereign even if that means giving them the right to vote for the wrong people (which is a subjective judgement anyway).
I’m all in favour of anything that can be done to help smaller parties achieve maximal seats… (until our poll ratings improve at least
)
Part of the real problem is not the voting system but how people choose to use it. Any voting system can be undermined if people choose to do so. The main problem is that the people don’t fully take responsibility for the choices they make. It’s FF or PD’s or the Green’s* fault that the economy is screwed but the people who voted for them because of, not despite, their policies that lead us to this situation are blameless because sure what did they know? Well, if they don’t know enough the responsibility in a democracy is theirs to inform themselves. FF lied to you about building that new school? They’ve been liars for years hadn’t you heard they promised it twice before but you decided to ignore that.
The problem we have is that we have two electoral chambers but no clear separation of the jobs of day to day decision makers, legislators and the “get me a new house crew”. My notion is that we should separate the three roles of elected reps to legislate and provide us with an executive (ministers/government) from the local lobbying by altering the nature of the two chambers completely along with altering the voting system.
http://www.danielsullivan.ie/blog/?p=504
I would also advocate the creation of an purely advisory electronic chamber of the people that would provide for some scrutiny of legislation. Such a chamber might in time (I’m thinking decades) provide the embryonic basis for more informed continuous democracy.
*(I’m happy to blame or hold accountable the Green and their ministers for what they’ve done since 2007 but it is beyond my understanding how some people appear think the property bubble and so on is their fault)
@Daniel,
Since you’ve gone all party political on us I might as well point out that in fact we have three electoral chambers (including the county councils) and in fact most local issues were the fault of the local authorities whose makeup was majority comprised of (wait for it) FG, Lab and Independent members. After 2004 there was only a single council in the state where FF held a majority. In many councils it did not even have a majority from 99-04. The line of defence will be that councils were starved of funding from central government etc, however in reality during the boom years the council received more funding than ever before. If things went wrong it should have been those ruling blocs held to account. Yet who do the electorate blame for every ill? FF. Whoever is in government takes the rap for everything that goes wrong in that time, regardless of who ultimately is responsible. Whew, rant over.
I recommend this article by Professor Michael Gallagher published in the Sunday Times recently where he demolishes the myth that MPs dont’ do constituency work. He argues this role of TDs should be enhanced rather than people looking down their noses at it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6590896.ece
James I had intended that line “It’s FF or PD’s or the Green’s* fault that the economy is screwed” to be in quotes in that people are saying this but not taking responsibility for their part in the democratic process of having endorsed these policies. I was stuck most by this in watching the public service march where you’d swear not a soul amongst them had so much as given a FF candidate a No.5 and they’d all been card carrying socialists their entire lives.
Joanna, I don’t think anyone has suggested MPs don’t do constituency work. Also that article wasn’t about making any comparison with the UK at all. What he says is “In debates on institutional reform it’s common to hear the view that MPs in most countries don’t get called on to do much constituency work” so he was using MP in the generic sense of member of parliament not MPs in the specific UK sense.
The key point is “Because there’s no provincial tier of government in this country, and local government is weak, contacts that in some countries would go to local or provincial representatives go to national-level parliamentarians.” which was the pint I made in that people are using the voting system for TDs to get people to do stuff that should be done outside the legislature and executive.
And he notes “One unusual feature of Irish politics that might be responsible for the relatively peripheral role of the Dail is the fact that virtually all ministers are TDs. Hardly any other country operates this way.” Again echoing what I said about the need to separate those in the executive from the legislature.
Again, I haven’t said thw work that a TD does is unnecessary or shouldn’t be done. Just that some people other than those whose primarily task is to be our executive and legislature should do it.
James I had intended that line “It’s FF or PD’s or the Green’s* fault that the economy is screwed” to be in quotes in that people are saying this but not taking responsibility for their part in the democratic process of having endorsed these policies. I was stuck most by this in watching the public service march where you’d swear not a soul amongst them had so much as given a FF candidate a No.5 and they’d all been card carrying socialists their entire lives.
Politics is like everything else. We live in the scientific/technological age. Therefore the politician who make it to the top these days relies on science/technology to get the biggest number of votes – a purely mathematical exercise based on the lowest common denominator. The lowest common denominator in human society is based on survival and survival is based on greed and selfishness. Sadly to this basic principle no political system is immune.
Daniel,
If that is the case whey when you go on to this post from the home page does the title ‘all-politics-is-local-except-in-uk’
In no country where a named person on a ballot paper is up for election do politicians not do work on behalf of their constituents. Clinton and Obama have done the local stuff too. I have seen it on their websites when they were Senators.
But I agree anyway that more power should be given to local authorities for example in relation to education, and transport.
I oppose list sytems mainly because those on lists are the chosen ones of party leaderships instead of the voters.
I agree with all above who have said the Seanad is the place to provide the alternative to our multi seat prstv elected Dail and the Seanad could provide some Ministers too. But for this to happen it needs reform, which I know you are for, that brings at least an element of Senators elected directly by the voters that can currently only vote in Dail elections (possibly those that can vote in local elections should also be allowed to vote for the Seanad).
Eddie,
There’s is an element of that, just as there is in all walks of life. Politics has all kinds of people and all kinds of motiviations, good, bad and middling.
“If that is the case whey when you go on to this post from the home page does the title ‘all-politics-is-local-except-in-uk” I was talking about the article you were referencing from the Sunday Times. It was not specifically about MP-MPs. James will have to answer for the title of this piece, not me.
“I oppose list sytems mainly because those on lists are the chosen ones of party leaderships instead of the voters.” I dislike the notion of party apparatchiks picking the candidates but its not the voters either. People who are members of parties such as FG and Labour which have OMOV will be well aware that it is possible to stock branches with people who only show up for the convention. No candidate select system is perfect.
Daniel,
I take your point about the article. But British MPs are an example of MPs in single seats doing as much constituency work as we TDs do.
I agree with you that no system is perfect. But our system means that voter choice is releatively proportionately reflected in the make up of parliament unlike UK and other systems that have single seats. PR means that you don’t waste your vote by voting for a candidate from a smaller party or independent because even if they don’t win you can influence who does win through your transfers. And our system means the individual candidate is accountable to you at the ballot box and you can choose between candidates from the bigger parties.
I also think that the fact that we do what the voters want us to do, namely follow up local issues and local matters is not a bad thing about the system. It’s what he voters want. It means you engage with the voters on their terms. And it keeps you grounded and in touch with your voters concerns which can be then fed into legislative work.
Professor Gallagher puts it well when he says: “The idea that a TD should shut their door on such constituents and say “don’t be bothering me, the constitution doesn’t say anything about TDs doing constituency work, I’m in the Dail to concentrate on legislation and not to help sort out people’s problems” does not seem to amount to an enhancement of democracy.”
The only way we could stop TDs from following up on local and individual queries from voters would be to take the voters out of the equation and that is not democratic. And even then the tradition of voters contacting their TDs is so much part of our system it probably would remain.
Joanna, that article doesn’t say “British MPs … in single seats doing as much constituency work as we TDs do.” he said “In fact, it’s a norm that MPs have a heavy constituency workload, and this is usually their most important role — ahead of anything to do with parliamentary committees and legislation.” The load may also be heavy elsewhere too but that is not the same thing as it being remotely the same. MPs might have 30 hours of this per week on top of other work and our TDs might have 50 hours of it. Both are heavy, they are not the same though.
Fact is that there are TDs who do nothing but constituency work as I suspect there are MPs, but the question and comparison point needs to be have we more TDs who do that than MPs as a % of the parliament. And I think we do.
“The only way we could stop TDs from following up on local and individual queries from voters would be to take the voters out of the equation and that is not democratic.” not true, if you read my blog post about this I propose that the advocates who would replace the TDs function of looking after local issues be paid more so that it is no longer a stepping stone to being a minister or legislation but a goal in itself. And one that few will move over to the legislature to when that chamber pays less.
Daniel,
I am certain that MPs do as much constituency work as we do. I read an interview with one Labour MP (a backbencher) and the amount of time he was reported as doing surgeries was far in excess of the average T.D.
Plus this past year with multiple budgets and supplementary budgets, bank guarantees, emergency laws and late night sitting, significantly more sitting days, and tight votes, all TDs have spent less time in their constituencies than in previous years.
The only way we could stop TDs from following up on local and individual queries from voters would be to take the voters out of the equation and that is not democratic.
No, we can just remove the incentives for clientelist behaviour by fixing the mode of interaction between the citizen and the state.
If state agencies such as the passport office were run more efficiently, this would remove the need for thousands of last-minute passport applications to be mediated via TDs.
If social housing was allocated in a fair and transparent manner, this would end the practice of politicians attempting to win votes by getting their supporters housed first.
If the department of social welfare got its act together and made decisions swiftly and paid out benefits in a timely manner, this would end the annual clamour from TDs for back-to-school allowance to be paid on June first (though why new satchels and schoolbooks need to purchased before the last school year is even over is beyond me).
If the department of enterprise paid out statutory redundancy payments from the social fund (when companies are unable to do so) within days as opposed to months, there would be no need for the endless proforma PQs on behalf of constituents still waiting for their severance payments.
If new school buildings were allocated purely on the basis of need as opposed to being driven by local political considerations, there would no need for the endless representations from boards of management to local TDs.
If the justice system explicitly banned proforma character references and instead required the referee to wax lyrical about their favourite rapist in open court, this would stop much of hte “ah shure, he wouldn’t hurt a fly” type of letter emanating from constituency offices.
I’m sure you get the picture. Of course there’s no incentive for politicians who clawed there way up on the basis of “hard work on the ground” to fix the systems so that such low-value slogging wouldn’t be required anymore. That would render their unique selling point obsolete overnight. And it would be much, much harder to get oneself elected on the basis of original strategic thinking on how to fix our macro-challenges than it is by micro-managing the relationship between citizen and state.
The post title was originally as Joanna has quoted, “all-politics-is-local-except-in-uk”, in drafting the post I renamed it a few times but the wordpress engine will always retain the first given title in URL etc.
The OP is a reflection on the neighbouring systems of UK and ROI, and I touch very briefly on the US system in conclusion.
I will admit I had not realised the extent to which UK parliamentarians engaged in constituency work, I had been under an impression that, given a “safe seat” culture, many especially amongst the senior ranks, delegated many of these functions to local party organisations.
However the localisation does emerge at selection level I feel, where UK aspirants can flit from one constituency to the next in search of a party seat, where geography and local ties appear to matter less at the outset. Am sure is not the case in every constituency but I have watched both Tory and Labour ‘candidates-for-hire’ detail their various attempts at selection in constituencies x, y and z and how they are now in 12th place on the party national preference list or whatever. Of course these candidates still have to be ratified by a local organisation and then by the people but it amazes me the ease with which these candidates appear able to transport themselves around. I believe this can also happen in the US where there is a constitutional requirement that a representative aquires a permanent home within the constituency within 60 days following the election but there is an understanding they may wish to skidaddle back where they came from, if unsuccessful. Closer to home, I think at least some connection to the constituency must be demonstrated prior to any attempt at election, and typically candidates will either live, work or socialise there and often all of the above.
Touching on Joanna’s last point, I think this has actually been quite a good year for Irish parliamentarians and the Irish parliament. Between the banking crisis, NAMA, Lisbon and the various budgets we have had both more activity and more attention concentrated around our national chamber than in many previous years. We have also seen this year how key announcements and government decisions were communicated in the Dáil rather than in doorstep interviews and I think this last point is a reflection of the differing approaches of the current and previous Taoisigh.
Joanna: “But our system means that voter choice is releatively proportionately reflected…” I do not believe this for two reasons.
1. The PR gurus and spin doctors who have control of the media in this country make sure that certain policies are treated as gospel while opposing ideas are ridiculed.
2. There is no parliamentary oposition in this country at the moment e.g. the Lisbon treaty referendum and Mr Kenny throwing out red herrings like Seanad reform (no mention now) to deflect attention from the current government predicament. I could go on!
Doesw anyone see what is going on?
EddieL, though I happen to disagree with Enda’s proposals on the Seanad (he plans to abolish it by seeking changes to the constitution to do so) they’re not lacking in detail.
The problem for you EddieL is that if you can’t find a party that would advocate the various collection of policies you would support you need to stand yourself and articulate them.
Eddie,
I agree with point no. 1 but on the other hand 42 per cent of voters voted other than Fianna Fail or Fine Gael in the June local elections, which is the largest per cent ever. There are 2 Dublin Councils controlled by partnerships of Labour/SF/PBP and Labour/Socialist Party. Things are changing and us on the left have to use our power of one to one persuasion to get over that bias in the media.
On No. 2 I agree (although there was some – Sinn Fein are in Parliament) and lack of parliamentary opposition didn’t stop people voting against Lisbon the first time. I agree re Kenny although it was actually to deflect from the criticism of Kenny re his handling of the John O’Donohue situation and the fact that a poll was about to be carried out (and it worked it stopped them falling in the poll though they didn’t gain either in that Sunday Business Poll).
42 per cent voting other than the two civil war parties. That can grow. But I am against any change in the sytem that interferes with the sovereignty of the individual voter casting his or her preference in the ballot box for named candidates in multi seat constituencies.
@Proposition Joe
Just to follow up one one comment you made:
“If social housing was allocated in a fair and transparent manner, this would end the practice of politicians attempting to win votes by getting their supporters housed first.”
Whilst not disagreeing with your points in the main, that much low level work is performed by TDs who really should be concentrating on higher order matters, I will make an important clarification. The line above suggests a preferment which I do not believe is the case. The reason I say this is unfortunatley not through some higher nobler motives but rather from the simple preservation necessity of being re-elected. Every constituent has a vote. It would be a foolish or a brave politician who would turn any request from his door, regardless from what source it came. In reality the only criteria is that the requester be registered to vote – who knows how they will vote in future. If one only ever dealt with known supporters it would be a form of voluntary vote limitation.
I would make another point re the clientelist structure. If the system is to change it has to be a two way process. Not just the politicians but the people. Anyone who has canvassed in any election will know how varied and voluminous the requests that come in on the doorsteps. The candidate who ignores such requests does so at their own peril. This is not to endorse the system but to acknowledge the reality of securing a vote base in order that one can then in turn address the higher goals. Because without first getting elected one cannot implement any ideas, be they parish pump or trans continental.
There are a few simple measures we can take now to make the current electoral system more democratic and progressive.
1. Make all Dáil and council constituencies the same size. Currently, we have 3, 4 and 5 seater Dáil constituencies. A citizen living in a 5 seater has better representation than someone living in a 4 or a 3 seater (by representation, I mean TDs representing them, I don’t mean the TD/pop quota). This measure wouldn’t require a referendum.
2. Empower councils with full fiscal responsibilites. This would remove the localisation of our TDs and make our councillors more responsible for local matters. Currently, councillors are only responsible for about 20-30% of the council budget. The rest of the budget is currently dictated to them by the Dáil. This measure also wouldn’t require a referendum.
3. Reduce the term of office of councillors to four years and reduce the maximum lenght of the Dáil to four years. This would allow the electorate more opportunity to frequent the ballot box, thus putting more pressure on those elected to behave responsibly and in the interests of the electorate. This measure may require a referendum I think.
@James
Agreed on change being a two way street. Eddie Hobbs has a good line that part of our problem is that we like our politicians to be slightly corrupt, operating on the fringes of that grey area that might or might not be legal or ethical. That way we’ve got someone to go to if need something slight dodgy done.
Every constituent has a vote. It would be a foolish or a brave politician who would turn any request from his door, regardless from what source it came.
In the clientelist system, there’s no point in doing a favour for someone who’d be unlikely to vote for you at the best of times. The primary job of tallymen these days is not to predict the result, we’ve exit polls for that. Rather their main job is accumulate information on the geographical location of pockets of support and conversely pockets of opposition. Every box from every townland is scrutinized and the townlands with unusually low votes for the incumbent party (usually FF) are recorded for future reference.
So that when a delegation from Rathcormac’s Scoil Bhríde Parents’ Council comes to meet Ned O’Keffee looking for their pre-fabs to be replaced, well the bould Neddie can confidently send them on their way sure in the knowledge that he’d lose few votes as a result. Here are the words straight from Nedín’s mouth:
And no, Ned is not an outlier in this regard. Buffoon he may be, but he’s just putting into words what every pol in the country practices.
@Prop Joe
That is a good point. I know those tallies well, have scrutinised them many times. I suppose where I might have seen similar in practice would be where for example a particular pressure group is seen as being aligned a certain way and may have a bulk of activists from that direction. In this regard other parties may not be as willing to help out. I have also seen it happen where all parties have made efforts on a particular cause and the individual or group involved go out of their way to thank just one contributor. Often because it turns out they are aligned that way themselves. This can discourage others getting involved the next time.
However I am familiar with another rule of thumb used by many politicians (including myself when was a candidate) which states that everyone will receive equal assistance but with the strict proviso that the applicant (client?) must be registered to vote. If they are not already they will be given a reg form along with whatever other paperwork and expected to complete the process. They don’t have to vote for the politician they came to (although it would be nice) but they do have to vote for someone, or at least pretend to (by at least becoming eligible to do so).
James,
There are whole families who demand services from their local politicians – a placement for Mary on some FAS course, a reference for Joe, a coal allowance for Granddad, a rushed passport in time for the holidays abroad and a fix for the drainpipe and the ESB light outside the door while you’re at it – and having secured all these favours don’t bother their barney to vote for anyone at all!
As you and Joanna point out, no politician can afford to turn such pests away, even if they’re just trying to fast track or queue jump on access to services or can’t be bothered to do the hard slog themselves. Twenty or thirty years ago it may have been different, but we now have a Citizens Advice Bureau (which is excellent),plus a range of voluntary and statutory bodies whose job it is to advise citizens of their entitlements and how to lay claim to them. I think there’s a difference between such personal clientele and local communities, campaign groups or organisations seeking development opportunities, or schools or services designed to improve life generally for everyone in their area and not just rebound to individual benefit. Most of these demands will require the active support of TDs and local Senators, and in many cases the assistance of Councillors may not be of much practical value except as a conduit to the local TD.
Personally, I don’t see much wrong with all this as part of a TD’s role as a public representative, provided they bear in mind Edmund Burke’s old maxim: “Your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion…”
Ending the dual mandate and providing Councillors with a salary and fixed terms for local elections that could no longer be postponed at the whim of government was supposed to alleviate the clientilist burden of the TD’s postbag, if not entirely eliminate it. I’m not sure if any political science department has initiated a study as to how this has worked out in practice, but it would make a useful project for someone.
The 1998 Jenkins Report on a PR based voting system for the UK was quietly shelved and is by now largely forgotten. Granted there was a lot more enthusiasm for reform of the voting system amongst the liberal media than the Labour government that had commissioned the report, or even among the Tories. Had the 1997 Labour victory not been quite so overwhelming and if there was a real prospect that a second Labour term must inevitably have hinged on a coalition with the Lib Dems, then there would have been a far greater push towards electoral reform in the UK. By comparison with the UK,and for all its faults, our PR-STV is a much more representative system and fairer to the voter than the UK’s FPTP.
The problem for us really arises when the votes have all been counted, with the way our Parliament functions (or fails to function, more like. Small wonder that many TDs, government backbenchers as well as opposition, find that the only useful thing they can really do is to concentrate on their constituency work. There are no ‘free’ votes (except for the occassional trips down morality lane)and opportunities for backbenhers to sharpen their skills and make a mark are excessively limited within all parties. Reform of our political institutions should be the first priority, even if the main parties have no appetite for it (and they don’t); the voting system can be left to itself.
@Conor
Excellent suggestions. I would love to have them enacted. Perhaps with a few more safeguards in regard to councils control of finances.
Ian
@Veronica
Those pests are basically just reacting rationally to the set of incentives presented to them. If FAS had a transparent and incorruptible entry mechanism for courses, as the CAO do, then Mary wouldn’t be bothered trying to queue-jump via her local TD. People don’t go their local TDs to try to get their children fast-tracked onto high-points courses in Trinity, for the obvious reason that they know it’ll get them nowhere fast.
And I don’t really buy the distinction between people seeking personal gain via clientelism, and the campaign group looking for a community benefit. Remember that every new school green-lit in one area means another school development being shelved elsewhere. A number of school building programs in Dun Laoghaire were put on the back-burner immediately after Mary Hanafin lost the education gig, and I’ve no doubt the opposite happened in Cork North West shortly after the Batt-man took up the mantle.
The late Frank McClusky had a great line about the people who visited his constituency clinic: one third wanted him to do the impossible, one third asked him to do something illegal, and the rest were just lonely and dropped in for a chat. In reality though, people get results via clientelism and that’s why the practice persists. Just ask the fishermen in Frank Fahy’s constituency. The solution is to take away the incentive. If the department of social welfare made a quick transparent decision on who got the coal allowance and didn’t bend the rules in response to “representations”, then the requests to sort out Granddad’s coal allowance would quickly disappear.
The problem though is that the political class have themselves a very strong incentive not to remove those incentives. Otherwise they’d have to compete on the hard stuff, like vision and ideas, instead of just being well-paid secretaries for their lazy constituents.