It’s a pity Mary McAleese didn’t air her views on Presidential age

Perhaps an acute apprehension prompted former President Mary McAleese to disclose her intended vote in the marriage referendum, notwithstanding the consistent backing for this proposition in opinion polls (‘We must back marriage equality poll’, Irish Examiner, April 14).

After all, opinion polls about voting intentions, prior to the abolition of Seanad Éireann, suggested that a ‘yes’ vote of 64% was assured, but the electorate rejected that proposition by 51% to 48%.

Furthermore, five of the last 10 referenda proposals have been rejected by the electorate, notwithstanding opinion polling and loud, populist cheerleading.

Apathy, inertia, grave doubt and voter turnout of less than 50% are recurring features in referenda to change the Constitution.

Opinion polls have proven to be an unreliable indicator of voting behaviour when turnout falls below 50% — and this has been the case in six of the last 10 referenda; or when the electorate are disaffected and alienated; or if the electorate do not feel fully or adequately informed about the underlying issue and are deeply concerned about what they consider could be unacceptable or unintended consequences.

But it would have been insightful if Mrs McAleese had shared her insight into the Government’s other referendum proposition — to reduce the age of candidates for the presidency to 21 years, because she is uniquely qualified to offer a credible opinion.

She began her acclaimed double-term tenure as President when she was 46, having established a distinguished and broadly based career. But when Mrs McAleese was 21, she had not yet graduated from Queens University; nor had she been called to the bar of Northern Ireland, nor married Martin McAleese.

It would be insightful were Mrs McAleese to advise whether she would have been as effective as President had she been elected 25 years earlier than 1997.

If youth is not a barrier to the successful execution of a high office, would she, for example, recommend that candidates for positions appointed by the President, such as Supreme and High Court judges, diplomats and government ministers, be 21 years old?

Her observations on this issue would be valued. Would her opinion not, therefore, be an immensely valuable input to the electorate, as they attempt to make sense of the utopian mirage presented to them by the Government in this referendum proposition?

Myles Duffy

Glenageary

Co Dublin