Government is empowered to act

The most important ‘referendum’ was the general election, by which we conferred on a select group of individuals the responsibility and honour of administering the affairs of state, the ‘permanent government’, and co-opting experts, while keeping the common good foremost.

Why is it that governments seek our opinions, via referenda, on so many issues, when we have given them the remit to do so?

Note the following referenda, beginning with judges’ pay: Given that the country is bankrupt and that the State is the biggest employer and had to reduce the numbers and pay of employees, there was justification in cutting the pay of all judges. Instead, we resorted to a populist referendum masquerading as action, while tampering with the Constitution.

An Oireachtas investigative committee on the bankrupting of the country. Since the affairs of the many financial institutions have become of grave public account, surely it was possible to compel their executives to answer questions at the Public Accounts Committee: Notwithstanding their right not to incriminate themselves, they should have been asked: Did you think it prudent to expose your institution to debts multiple times its intrinsic value? Did you think it prudent to offer exorbitant loans without due diligence? Did you defer to your ethics committee, or your shareholders’ ethics committee, in the stewardship of your company? A public investigation along these lines would have assuaged the public’s anger and bewilderment.

The children’s referendum: Since the legal process is so flexible and can ‘turn on a comma or full stop’, there was no reason why the law could not have put the best interests of children first, and we can be sure that particular referendum is not going to prevent poor, vulnerable children suffering in the future.

The Appeals Court referendum: I was honoured that my expert opinion was sought in this matter. However, since my expertise — such as it is — does not incorporate legal and judicial matters, I rejected this proposal. If such a court is needed, then it should be set up. No need to ask the people.

The Seanad referendum: An Taoiseach Enda Kenny, a politician of great experience, both in Ireland and Europe, felt that the idea of two houses of representatives was unnecessary, as many European countries have proved.

He rightly decided that the Irish people should have a say in this matter, and, let us salute ourselves in this regard, we do take an interest in ‘public things’ that concern us, and 40% of the electorate thought it worthy of voting on. I voted to keep it and perhaps reform it.

Happily, a majority of the electorate concurred with this, and whether it was accepted or rejected, we, the electorate, are winners, and the imperative is retrenchment and reform of political representation.

We can thank Enda Kenny’s initiative, and ignore the commentariat’s tiresome and tedious analysis of such issues. Who are we that we are worthy of exalted political paragons — let us lead ourselves to reality.

A reformed and more democratic Seanad could act, within our polity, as a counterweight to the entrenched party political system.

One useful referendum that we should consider is the reduction of government terms, from five years to four years, as some revolutionary entities adhere to.

Eddie McGurrin

Hazelwood

Sligo