Hopefully, reform proposals will not be as fleeting as election manifestos can be

THE accuracy of that old truism, of the likelihood of several buses arriving simultaneously when the prospective passenger has been kept patiently waiting for an inordinate period of time, never ceases to amaze me.

It came to mind again over the last few days with the various proposals from the political parties in relation to the issue of political reform, a topic which is particularly close to my heart, and one on which I have spoken, and written, publicly on very many occasions.

It’s not a topic which makes for ‘lite’ reading, however, and I’ll have to ask you to bear with me, please — it is of fundamental importance to us all.

My basic thesis is that our system of parliamentary democracy has, at its core, the principle of the citizen’s participation in the democratic process of government. It is a time-honoured system, having its roots in the Tribunes of ancient Rome, and traceable in Ireland through the current Oireachtas back to the first Dáil in 1919, Westminster, Grattan’s Parliament of the 1780s and 90s and even to the Statutes of Kilkenny in 1345.

All of these, in one form or another, were representative assemblies, with representatives of the people presenting their input on the issues of the day to their peers in formal, and informal, assembly. Our modern day representatives are charged, by the voters, with the same task in our current version of the system.

But do they? Do they represent our views adequately, or even to the best of their ability? Are we satisfied with their inputs, or with the outcomes? Do they fulfil the role of Teachtaí Dála — ‘messengers to the parliament’ to give it its proper translation? Has it ever struck you that there’s a large element of role-reversal involved, and that our ‘messenger TO the parliament’ has turned, chameleon-like, into a ‘messenger FROM the parliament’ — instead of representing US, our TD is representing THEM, those who operate the machinery of the state, our state? Do our TDs seem more like apologists for the system of governance, with all its deficiencies, rather than our man or woman ‘in there,’ fighting on our behalf ?

Why is this? Having been a practitioner of the system for seven years, it’s my opinion that it’s down to human nature. The human nature of the vast majority of those doing any job, who try to mould the job to their own maximum advantage, and the human nature of those who appoint them to the job, who don’t really want to know about or be troubled by an issue unless it has a direct bearing on their own way of life, and comfort zone.

The urgent need for reform of our system has been highlighted by our financial collapse, and now presents a major opportunity not only to overhaul our current system but to create an entirely new system — one which is appropriately reflective of modern-day Ireland and the way we communicate with each other. Communication, after all, is the raison d’etre of any parliamentary assembly.

Communication is the essence of our society — without it we have nothing; the Tribunes of Rome, and all of their successors, were convened for the purpose of resolving issues through communication, and that basic principle is as valid in the Ireland of today as it was in ancient Rome. Apart from that basic principle, however, everything else has changed in the world of communications — the carrier pigeons of Rome have morphed into the cyber spheres of Microsoft and Google; regrettably however, our system of parliamentary democracy has failed dismally to keep pace with these developments, and modern communications systems are massively under-utilised, let alone exploited.

Communications are the core of our system, and at the core of its problems. Other issues include anti-social sitting-hours, ridiculously low number of sitting-days and archaic voting practices. Also the use of the ‘guillotine’ to rush legislation through the houses without sufficient debate while at the same time, perversely, inordinate delays, often of several years, in processing relatively routine legislation. The structure of the committee system, the make-up of cabinet, and the roles of Ministers of State, or ‘junior ministers’ are other issues to be confronted.

All of them, however, pale into insignificance when put alongside the root-causes of the problems of our political culture, the multi-seat constituency, and the lack of powers vested in our local authorities. For so long as our TDs are in direct competition with local colleagues, most of all (as FIne Gael, and even Labour, are about to discover) from members of the same party, their attentions will be focused, first, last and always, on the local council playing-pitch rather than on the national stadium of Leinster House. That’s where their game of survival is being played out, and where their fate, under the multi-seat system, will always be determined.

As a long-time proponent of reform, it is indeed encouraging to see the parties give some priority to the question. I’m long enough around though to know that election manifestos often have the characteristics of a snowflake in spring; it is to be hoped that, this time anyway, so far as this issue is concerned, they don’t share the same fate. My colleagues in the Irish Parliamentary (former members) Society, most notably Gemma Hussey and Brendan Halligan, have done some great work in this area, and are unlikely to lessen their efforts for change now that some momentum has been generated; nor should they, for they are doing the state some real service.

Jim Glennon is chairman of Edelman Public Relations and a former Fianna Fáil TD and senator