The presidency does us a greater service when it stays above politics

ANY day now, I expect the President to intervene on an issue of vital importance to the nation.

In a speech to some sporting organisation or other, she will praise the exploits of the Irish soccer team in the World Cup. And she will refer to all those Irish fans who sacrificed so much to make the journey to the Far East in order to support the team.

Then Mrs McAleese will turn her attention to the fans who watched on television in Ireland. "How wonderful," she will say, "that modern technology made it possible for fans at home, who perhaps could not afford to travel, to support the team at relatively little cost." And then the big statement: "The Government's discussions with the FAI will be pivotal in determining whether everyone can continue to follow the progress of the Irish soccer team."

What will happen then? Well, the FAI will be understandably annoyed. They may even express "surprise and regret" that the President would use her office to put pressure on them to revoke a contract already made.

The response of Mrs McAleese's Office will be swift. "The President would never use her office to intervene on a sensitive political issue," a press release will tell us. The Minister for Sport will observe that she was merely making a statement of fact. And the Taoiseach will enjoy wide support when he brands the FAI as "whingers".

The truth is that most of us don't object when politicians step over the boundary between what they should and shouldn't say. We know we can make up our own minds on important issues and we are unlikely to be swayed too much by the opinion of one person, even if that person happens to be President or Taoiseach. And yet it is vital to acknowledge that there are boundaries to what our political leaders should say. Inevitably people will divide, sometimes bitterly, on important issues in referendum or election campaigns. At such times, it is comforting to know that the Presidency represents all of us equally, and stays neutral.

Previous presidents saw this point clearly and their terms of office were characterised by a studied reticence on issues of controversy. But then came Mary Robinson in 1990 and things changed. Her comments on the X case and the divorce referendum were among the low points in her presidency.

Mrs McAleese caused similar controversy in 1997 by taking communion in Christ Church Cathedral.

These days, people have an almost unbearable urge to express themselves.

Listen to RTÉ Radio's Liveline, where the remarkable thing about the callers is that their stories are either very personal or very trivial.

Once upon a time, you kept major personal tragedies to yourself, or told a close friend. Now you tell the nation. Likewise with trivia. During the recent Roy Keane debacle, parents went on air to worry about their children's trauma over Roy's bust-up with Mick McCarthy. Neither these parents, nor the RTÉ presenters, displayed the slightest trace of irony or amusement at the unimportance of it all.

Politicians follow trends. Like the callers to Liveline, our public figures now overstate their thoughts and emotions as well. And it works.

Two of the biggest culprits, the President and the Taoiseach, are among the most successful leaders this country has had. Mr Ahern's ability to connect with people on the doorsteps of his constituency is matched by an ability to tell us how thrilled he is by Irish sporting achievements. And even his recent "whinger" jibe at the anti-Nice campaigners was an exercise in populism because it appealed to the macho element in the electorate.

Mrs McAleese is different from Mr Ahern whereas he shakes lots of hands, she gives lots of hugs. And while this emotional side of her personality may spill over into overstatement on occasion, it still makes her one of the nation's greatest political assets.

Her spontaneous and articulate reaction to the events of September 11 won deserved admiration from the public. Her willingness to work for reconciliation has been a key feature of her presidency and if Ireland rejects the Nice Treaty again, it may be to her that Bertie Ahern will turn to smooth the ruffles of other European leaders.

Her diplomatic nous was very much in evidence when she visited Pope John Paul three years ago. Her predecessor had caused controversy by abandoning the traditional black mantilla when visiting the Vatican, leading some commentators to observe that Mary Robinson had no problem observing protocol in an Islamic Mosque, but felt the need to give two fingers to the Pope.

Mrs McAleese on the other hand opted for diplomacy. Observers in the press gallery were both amused and amazed to see her head-dress which wasn't quite a mantilla, but something remarkably like one. It was a break with Robinson bravura, but a statement of Mrs McAleese's own distinctiveness nonetheless.

The President went on to speak warmly of the Pope, referring to his "ferociously agile" mind. It was a typical piece of McAleese over-speak, designed to promote good relations between the modern Irish state and the Vatican city state.

Mrs McAleese might argue, with some sincerity, that she was no less diplomatic in Greece last week when she said the Nice Treaty was "pivotal" in the context of the timing of EU enlargement. But while her comments were technically factual, they were ill-advised. The enlargement of the EU and the Nice Treaty should not be in the presidential script when the issue is so sensitive at home.

By involving herself in the Nice debate, the President has left herself open to the charge that she is willing to campaign for Government policy.

While the reaction of some politicians was reprehensible (John Gormley of the Green Party told her to "butt out"), the President could have spared us needless controversy by maintaining a diplomatic silence.

Some analysts will claim she has a right to state her views, even her voting intentions, in relation to Nice. And they point to other jurisdictions where non-executive heads of state have intervened on controversial issues in the past.

They are right in one respect; there is no formal constitutional obstacle blocking the President from making politically partisan statements.

But it would be regrettable if she took this road. The presidency does us a much greater service when it stays above politics, even when the President's heart and head are urging her to get stuck in. As a sports lover, Mrs McAleese might even be tempted to give the FAI a nudge in the right direction. And deep down we might like her to do so. But we would be much better off if she did not.