Maria Steen would have electrified a dull race, but her exclusion is not undemocratic

Louise Burne outlines the two main factors that led to Maria Steen's failure to attain enough backing for a run at the presidency

There may have been a desire for Maria Steen to run, but to suggest that anything undemocratic happened to stop her is categorically untrue. Photo: Brian Lawless/PA

The last word had barely left Maria Steen’s mouth when Independent Ireland sent out a press release lamenting her failure to get on the ballot paper for the presidential election.

The “recent events around this year’s presidential election” have highlighted “an affront to democracy that can no longer be ignored”, and they will bring forward a bill “seeking a referendum on presidential nomination reform”.

Speaking to reporters outside Leinster House, Ms Steen herself said there is a “hunger” for “an alternative candidate” and that “hunger will now go unsatisfied”.

“Rarely has the political consensus seemed more oppressive or detached from the wishes and desires of the public,” she said.

There may have been a desire for her to run, but to suggest that anything undemocratic happened to stop her is categorically untrue.

In fact, it was democracy in its truest sense, as it involved a strict adherence to the rules, which dictate that a candidate must secure the support of 20 Oireachtas members or four councils to back them.

The Constitution is the Constitution. It can be changed, but until it is, you cannot suggest that abiding by it is unconstitutional.

People can disagree with Maria Steen’s views. That is democracy.

Few could deny that she would have electrified what is now set to be a dull three-horse presidential race between Fianna Fáil’s Jim Gavin, Heather Humphreys of Fine Gael and independent candidate Catherine Connolly.

As a barrister, Ms Steen is an articulate debater. She holds different views to the other candidates and would have ensured that the television and radio debates that are to follow would have been lively.

The more choice people have on the ballot paper the better, but the fact that there are only three candidates does not suggest that the whole process is undemocratic.

Ms Steen’s downfall can be attributed to two main factors. The biggest one is that she started too late. She ruled herself out of the race initially and then re-entered in recent weeks. Compare this to someone like Gareth Sheridan, who, while also not on the ballot paper, had been putting in the groundwork since early this year.

Ms Steen decided two weeks ago that she would run and, consequently, made the whole thing more difficult for herself.

The other downfall in her campaign was her supporters suggesting there was something untoward at play. One independent senator, who refused to back Ms Steen, told the Irish Examiner that the pressure they were coming under was enormous. They were “accused of blocking the democratic process”.

However, they argued, democracy works both ways. Nobody can force someone to sign a candidate’s nomination papers. That, they said, would be undemocratic and an affront to democracy.

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here

Maria Steen, Gareth Sheridan, Nick Delehanty or anyone else who may have gotten on the ballot paper may have made fine candidates. But democracy means they will not.

There is an argument that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael should have allowed their councillors to facilitate other candidates. But they were not undemocratic for instructing them not to.

Just because you do not like how the system works, that does not make it undemocratic.

And, if you do not like it, there is a way to change it. Perhaps Independent Ireland will be successful in trying to force a referendum to change the rules. Perhaps by 2032 they will be changed.

For now, them’s the breaks.