Democracy Commission must get over its own democratic deficit

ONE evening a couple of weeks ago a TD showed me a copy of an invitation he had received to the launch of a democracy commission. The invitation said this commission would conduct an audit of democracy in this country.

This grand title and these grand claims were indeed striking. I reckoned it was worth further exploration and sent an email asking if there was any chance of an invitation to the launch.

They replied immediately attaching invitation and further details. The launch was held in Dublin's Mansion House last Tuesday morning and I went along.

Now it turns out the Democracy Commission was established by Tasc a left-wing think-tank based in Dublin. Its committee includes some of the most prominent trade unionists and left-wing academics and journalists. I trust they wouldn't regard the description left wing as a criticism it is not. There is nothing wrong with left-wing thinkers; we could do with a lot more of them (not least in the Labour Party). The other group involved in setting up the commission is Democratic Dialogue. This is a Belfast- based think-tank which, according to its own website, among other things, is available to undertake commissions for research into social and political issues.

Trying not to sound cynical or mischief-making I asked a question at the press conference. I wondered whether they were concerned that many would regard it as highly ironic that a self-appointed left-wing oligarchy has taken it upon itself to handpick 10 people to undertake a study of Irish democracy.

I suggested that one might be left with the impression that the Democracy Commission is therefore neither independent nor democratic.

In particular I wondered how precisely the commission was being funded and on what basis the members of the commission were chosen.

Tasc chose David Begg, the ICTU general secretary, to chair the commission. He has always struck me as an able and reforming trade union leader with a deep understanding of political and public policy issues and a particular personal commitment to international development. If you were going to hand pick someone to chair a committee on democracy he would be as good choice as any. Mary Robinson is the "international counsellor" to the Democracy Commission. I wasn't sure what that meant but I presumed that it involves her putting her considerable international experience of democracy at the commission's disposal. The material distributed at the press launch went even further; the former president will be "a focused source of advice and expertise to the commission by acting as a conduit for global thinking, ideas, best practice and accessing individuals/groups with direct relevant experience of democracy issues". It makes her sound like a one-person human search engine.

The other members of commission are Reid Professor at Trinity Ivana Bacik, documentary-maker Kim Bartley, Fianna Fáil senator John Hanafin, community worker Leanne Hyland, businessman Stewart Kenny, co-ordinator of the Vincetian Partnership for Justice Bernadette MacMahon, director of the Institute of Governance at Queen's Elizabeth Meehan, former Fine Gael deputy leader Nora Owen and disability rights activist Donal Toolan.

They sound like an impressive collection of people and all are giving their time voluntarily. I would have a particular regard for Nora, John and Ivana who, together of course with Mary Robinson, have had the courage actually to contest democratic parliamentary elections.

In answer to my question I was told that the members were selected after a long period of consultation with all sectors "to identify individuals who would offer the necessary blend of experience, enthusiasm and commitment".

Notwithstanding the extensive consultation process, which apparently took months, the line-up of 10 includes two of Tasc's own advisory committee.

In fact, reading the list it is hard to avoid the impression that Nora Owen and John Hanafin are the token representatives of mainstream politics.

That said they both come from strong political families that have long histories of independent mindedness and they are unlikely to allow themselves to be treated as tokens by anyone.

In the current environment of transparency about the funding of political activity it is worth exploring how the commission is funded. The Democracy Commission is being funded mainly by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

This English-based trust was set up at the beginning of the century on the proceeds of the cocoa empire of the Quaker businessman John Rowntree I think he is the man who also gives his name to the chocolate bars. The trust funds a selection of social, community and campaigning activity in Britain and, more recently, in Ireland.Among the other grants given out in the Republic by the Rowntree Trust was one to the Irish Council of Civil Liberties for a management consultant review. The trust last got publicity here when, in the lead into the last general election, they published a report which claimed that we were the most corrupt country in Europe and had lost foreign investment as a result. This latter claim was emphatically denied at the time by IDA Ireland which said there was no evidence to substantiate it.

The Rowntree Trust has one peculiarity in that all the trustees are Quakers. It is not in any way sectarian in how it allocates its grants. However, this is an interesting exclusion of other religions from its main board which, if it occurred here, would no doubt excite the interest of the Equality Authority, not to mention the Irish Council of Civil Liberties.

Our democracy, for all its flaws, actually works very well. Criticism like that from Tasc and other left wing groups often derives from their failure to persuade voters of the merits of their case. Unhappy with the result it gives they contend there must be something wrong with the system.

As I have written in this column many times, our democracy is not something we should take for granted. In particular falling voter turnout is a cause for worry. That is why a Dáil committee asked the Central Statistics Office to undertake a comprehensive audit of those who do and don't vote and an initial assessment of the reasons why. That is also why Dr Richard Sinnot of UCD and a team of researchers are currently trawling that material and other sources to explore further the reasons for falling voter turnout.

The initial indications are that under-25s and those in social and economically deprived areas are least likely to vote.

I suspect that much of the falling youth vote is due in some part to the indifference of large numbers of young people not only to politics but to many other aspects of society in relatively good times they have the luxury of non-involvement. The detachment of certain socio-economic sectors from politics is more worrying, not least because it reflects a greater alienation.

In wrapping up the press conference David Begg emphasised that he was conscious of the perception that his commission was self-appointed, he had a particular respect for politicians and he didn't want the commission to be seen as an attack on parliamentary democracy. The basis on which it was established doesn't engender confidence. Maybe the manner and content of its report will prove sceptics wrong.