Maybe it’s the people, and not the politicians, who’ve rejected Dana

EVEN today, we still do not know whether we are going to have a presidential election. The only thing we do know for sure is that the incumbent Mary McAleese is seeking a second term.

The other thing which seems certain is that if Dana Rosemary Scallon does not manage to get a nomination for this election then she will be blaming everybody but herself.

For more than seven years Dana has adopted this wounded persona of a political minor battling against the “establishment” (whatever that is).

Her whining about the procedures for this election is consistent with this persona. It is designed to give her victim status if she fails to get nominated or, alternatively, to allow her to portray herself as the underdog overcoming the odds if she actually makes it into the race.

However, Dana has not been the only one casting aspersions about the election procedures. On several programmes on radio earlier this week the commentator Jimmy Duffy (himself no stranger to partisan political controversies) made the highly politicised allegation that the Government were somehow trying to “shaft” Dana by having such a narrow window for nominations. His allegation was left unchallenged - several times. In fact, much of the subsequent media discussion was whether the narrow timescale for nominations had happened by conspiracy or cock-up. All were agreed that the government was pulling a fast one on Dana. It has been another one of those occasions where some of the media have been all too happy to take on board allegations made by some of the Government’s critics without checking it against the facts.

Well, I am sorry to let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, but there was neither a cock-up nor a conspiracy. On the contrary, the nomination timetable is in strict accordance with constitutional requirements and is consistent with what happened in the last presidential election in 1997.

Here are the relevant facts. Firstly, the provisions for the nomination of candidates are set out in the Constitution. A candidate can be nominated in one of three ways.

A serving or former President who has served one term can nominate himself or herself for a second term. That is what Mary McAleese has done. Everyone else seeking to be nominated must be supported by 20 members of the Oireachtas, or by four county or city councils.

The Government didn’t invent this nomination procedure - it was enacted by the people when they adopted the Constitution in a referendum.

The timeframe in which a presidential election must be held is also laid down in the Constitution. It is specified that the election must be held not earlier then 60 days before the new or re-elected President takes office.

Mary McAleese was inaugurated on November 11, 1997, and her term will finish on November 10, exactly seven calendar years later.

In 1997, the presidential election was held on Thursday, October 31. This time, the election is being held on Friday, October 22. This is six days earlier than in 1997. The decision to pick that date was perhaps influenced in part by the fact that school mid-term break is the following week when some families are away from home.

However, even though the election may be six days earlier, the nomination period is actually a little bit longer. In 1997, the regulation setting the polling day was made on September 15 and nominations closed on September 30. This year, the order fixing the polling day was made last Monday, September 13, and the close of nominations is October 1. So all of the Dana and Duffy talk of other candidates been locked out by the procedure is actually rubbish.

In a slightly narrower timescale in 1997, not only did it prove possible for five candidates to get nominated, but two of them, including Dana, made history by being nominated through the county council route.

Anyone seriously intent in contesting this presidential election would have known that the election would be held some time in the last two weeks of October. The most cursory of readings of the relevant constitutional provisions or electoral history books would have told them that much.

Dana first mooted the possibility of contesting this presidential election in the middle of June. At that time, sources in her campaign talked to the media about how she would have no problem collecting the 100,000 voters’ signatures required to secure a nomination. However a candidate cannot be nominated for the presidency in this way - there is no such facility for nomination by voter signatures. When this was pointed out to Dana’s people, this idea faded away.

IT has been striking how Dana has repeatedly appeared misinformed about the mechanics for the nomination of a presidential election candidate. This is surprising from someone who ran in a previous election. It is even disturbing from someone who sees herself as qualified for high constitutional office.

Dana’s ignorance of the constitutional procedure continued throughout the summer. This day last week I was part of a radio panel with Dana discussing the presidency. She complained loudly that the time was too short because she did not have the required number of days to put motions before the monthly meetings of the county councils. However, there is no requirement that a motion for a presidential nomination be given to the council days in advance. Neither is it necessary that the council decision be made at an ordinary monthly meeting. The councils can hold special meetings to decide on a nomination. Dana should know this because that is precisely what happened when she and Derek Nally were nominated by councils in 1997.

In the same radio discussion, Dana even tried to argue that she was hampered by the fact that the Dáil would not reconvene until the end of September, thereby limiting her access to TDs to seek a nomination from them. However, there is no need for the Dáil to be in session for her to do this. Oireachtas members personally sign a nomination form - no resolution or action of the Dáil or Seanad is required. All Dana had to do was contact the TDs and senators themselves and seek their support. I suggested that rather than waiting for the Dáil to return she might log on to the Oireachtas website where she would find contact details for all TDs and senators.

Dana can no longer claim to be an innocent political novice. She has fought a presidential election, a Dáil election and two European elections and has served as an MEP for five years. Surely if she was serious and applied about contesting this presidential election, she could have begun it much earlier. Admittedly she was busy until June 11 with her European Election campaign. But in July, August or September she could have written to every councillor or even travelled to visit party groups to put her case as to why she should be a candidate. Then if they really wanted to support her they could have scheduled a meeting for the nomination period.

Much of Dana’s effort and media interviews over the last few weeks have been dominated by a blame game rather than about actually setting out why she should be nominated. If Dana is not in the presidential race when nominations close next week it will be because she didn’t have enough support, and not because she did not have enough time.