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.

Excellent suggestions. I would love to have them enacted. Perhaps with a few more safeguards in regard to councils control of finances.

Ian

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.

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).

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:

I was contacted by a representative for the parents’ council and told her straight out my position. Des O’Malley used to do the same. All things being equal, I asked her why I should look after the people of Rathcormac if they didn’t look after me? I told her there was no funding available.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.