What are the advantages of IE political system?

PhotogTom

As context, I'm a Yank living in Ireland for the last 6 plus years. Now, I'm not so jingoistic to suggest that the American political system is perfect - we've all seen problems with it in the last few years especially. But, and maybe this is my grade school education/indoctrination showing - the "checks and balances" system that I see in the interaction of US Congress, Presidency and Supreme Court seems to be missing in the Irish system.
Can anyone tell me the last time a bill introduced into the Dail didn't become law? Can anyone even tell me the last time there was vigorous debate - besides dog breeding?
But, I think it goes beyond that and to the point of my question. It strikes me that Brian Cowen is able to, pretty much, run the political system as he wants to. First, you have to, apparently, sign a pledge that you will never, ever vote against your party. If you do, your career is over. And, don't even mention the opposition parties - they seem to have zero role in government. The Seanad has no real power that I can see either.
And the result is a total lack of responsibility or even involvement by the opposition. For instance, right or wrong, John Kerry had to run for office after having voted for the war in Iraq. Enda K or Eamon G can run for "office" and simply wash their hands of any responsibility for anything that has been done in government for the past 13 (?) years.
So, the question is, what are the advantages of the current Irish political system and is it possibly time for a fundamental change in the way the government is structured?

oscarBravo

Sadly, I can't find much to disagree with in your post.

Manach

For pure argument's sake I'd advance the speed of response of a parlimentart system to such issues as judicial reform. Case in point the abolition of the death penalty which was passed from legisilative to referendum phase in a relatively short time span. In the US because of the states' judicial structure, any such ban would be less practical?

Wolfe Tone

Is there not a kind of "checks and balances" in Ireland too? With regard to the separation of powers?

Eliot Rosewater

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Is there not a kind of "checks and balances" in Ireland too? With regard to the separation of powers?

Nothing comparable to the States.

Consider their divisions of power. There is the separation of Federal and State government. Within the Federal government there is an independent executive, legislature and judiciary. The legislature is further divided into two separate houses. The judiciary has a very strong constitution on which to base itself, and thus is quite powerful. There is no article like

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

in the Irish constitution. Even if we had as strong a Supreme Court as the US (do we?) it wouldn't matter much because there wouldn't be many restrictions to uphold.

Contrast with Ireland:

• He who controls the Dail controls the executive.
• He who controls the executive controls the (relatively powerless) Seaned.
• The President is only ceremonial and doesn't have any real power.
• Our constitution has relatively few Rights for the judiciary has to protect.
• Local authorities have very little power compared to US states.

When looked at in a historical perspective the Irish constitution is a step backwards in terms of the advancement of liberal democracy. The US constitution in 150+ years older than the Irish one but it's still far superior in its prescription of individual rights, restrictions on the power of government and separation of those powers within government.

Lockstep

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

There is no article like

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:
CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND – BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN
i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.
The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

Ignoring the ridiculous 'blasphemy clause' it reads fairly well.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

[*]The President is only ceremonial and doesn't have any real power.

Nothing too special here, parliamentary democracies are extremely common. It can work out great in somewhere like the US, but the semi-presidential system has been a disaster in places like Russia (which was permanently in deadlock before Putin forced the executive through) or France (also in a common state of deadlock)

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

[*]Our constitution has relatively few Rights for the judiciary has to protect.

Bunreacht na hÉireann has far more rights than the American Constitution. Plus we have a whole raft of EU and CoE rights which have been incorporated.
Also, the Irish judiciary is extremely powerful and has/will continue to strike down unconstitutional actions by the government.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

[*]Local authorities have very little power compared to US states.

Agreed, this is something Ireland could work on. I'd personally favour a regional legislature for each district (divided up along the same lines as the army brigades: Eastern (Leinster), Southern (Munster), Western (Connaught-Ulster)

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

When looked at in a historical perspective the Irish constitution is a step backwards in terms of the advancement of liberal democracy. The US constitution in 150+ years older than the Irish one but it's still far superior in its prescription of individual rights, restrictions on the power of government and separation of those powers within government.

If you look at it in a historical perspective, you'd know that the Irish Constitution was widely seen as one of the most liberal-democratic in the world when it emerged. It came about in 1930s Ireland when De Valera had a monocameral legislature, a self amending Constitution (from the Free State) and a completely ineffective opposition. It was assumed that Ireland would go the direction of other European states and become a dictatorship but instead, a finely democratic Constitution emerged, which guarantees everything from the right to education to the right to join a union.

Eliot Rosewater

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Ignoring the ridiculous 'blasphemy clause' it reads fairly well.

It doesn't really. The caveat "subject to public order and morality" is an extremely large one that gives the government the power (exercised frequently in the past) to censor material it does not agree with. A society in which books like A Farewell to Arms are banned is not a "free" one, in my opinion. Robert Graves said in his day that Ireland had "the fiercest literary censorship this side of the Iron Curtain."

The American First Amendment is clearly far superior in this regard.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Nothing too special here, parliamentary democracies are extremely common.

Them being common doesn't make the lack of separation of powers any better. You're right when you speak of potential deadlocks, but there is a very wide chasm between Ireland's system and the USA's system. As such, saying that the US is too separated is no argument for the Irish status quo.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

If you look at it in a historical perspective, you'd know that the Irish Constitution was widely seen as one of the most liberal-democratic in the world when it emerged.

In the context of 1930s Europe that's hardly surprising. But I'm trying to judge the constitution on its own objective merits and demerits, and if in any context, that of today. I just don't feel that we have a healthy democracy. We get to vote once in five years for a TD, usually with very limited choices, with the outcome of that election deciding which single person gets to exercise authority over the whole Irish state.

If that person chooses terrible economic policies (say, feeding a housing bubble), who can stop them? The recession we are in now is not merely a symptom of FF, it's also a symptom of the opposition parties and the constitutional framework in which all parties operate.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

...a finely democratic Constitution emerged, which guarantees everything from the right to education to the right to join a union.

Well, I've already addressed the "finely democratic" in my first post.

The fact that the right to join a Union has to be spelled out is a consequence of a governmental attitude whereby the individual has no rights until the State condescends to give them some. On the other hand, the drafters of the US constitution begun on the premise that the individual is inherently free, that the government is there to serve the people, and the government shall be delegated responsibility only to satisfy some social contract.

Hence Article 1, Section 8, where what Congress can do is spelt out, as opposed to what the individual can do.

Lockstep

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It doesn't really. The caveat "subject to public order and morality" is an extremely large one that gives the government the power (exercised frequently in the past) to censor material it does not agree with. A society in which books like A Farewell to Arms are banned is not a "free" one, in my opinion. Robert Graves said in his day that Ireland had "the fiercest literary censorship this side of the Iron Curtain."

Mainly as the Irish Constitution recognises that freedom of speech has its limitations: should I have a constitutional right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and be acquitted on the grounds of free speech?
Likewise, should I be allowed to leak security secrets, regardless of the outcome? The US doesn't allow these either, the Irish Constitution merely codifies what both believe.

Constitutional documents are by nature, extremely broadly written. Let's take the American "elastic clause":

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Or, the Takings Clause of the Vth Amendment:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The American First Amendment is clearly far superior in this regard.

No, it really isn't.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Them being common doesn't make the lack of separation of powers any better. You're right when you speak of potential deadlocks, but there is a very wide chasm between Ireland's system and the USA's system. As such, saying that the US is too separated is no argument for the Irish status quo.

What I'm saying is that merely because a system works in one country does not mean it will work in the other. The US semi-presidential system has been an extremely dodgy export for centuries. It works brilliantly when you have a competent president and strong separation of powers, but early-democratic Russia shows the deadlock that can result (Yeltsin was so frustrated that he illegally sent the army to dissolve the Duma as the entire system was in stalemate) whereas contemporary Russia shows the dangers that can occur when the president seizes far too much power leaving an almost toothless legislature.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In the context of 1930s Europe that's hardly surprising. But I'm trying to judge the constitution on its own objective merits and demerits, and if in any context, that of today. I just don't feel that we have a healthy democracy. We get to vote once in five years for a TD, usually with very limited choices, with the outcome of that election deciding which single person gets to exercise authority over the whole Irish state.

Aside from obviously outdated references to things like women in the home (which can and should be altered by referendum) what exactly in the Constitution do you take issue with?

Our democracy is a hell of a lot more healthy than the American version. Our PR;STV system ensures we have a wide range of choices for the Dáil rather than the two-party system of the US. We currently have 5 parties represented in the Dáil (plus Independents which include the PD remnants) and in the next election, PBP and the SP will probably gain seats as well.
As it stands, the STV means that it is far more possible for a person to enter the Dáil than almost any other system.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

If that person chooses terrible economic policies (say, feeding a housing bubble), who can stop them? The recession we are in now is not merely a symptom of FF, it's also a symptom of the opposition parties and the constitutional framework in which all parties operate.

Mainly because the Irish Courts have been extremely dubious about getting involved in socio-economic cases. The courts aren't policy writers, and have refused to get too involved in social and economic rights, feeling that the courts lack the authority to take an involved role in declaring how economic policy should be shaped. For example, the O'Reilly v AG case involved the courts refusing to force the government to provide halting sights for travellers, simply as the role of the courts isn't to dictate economic policy and how specific resources are to be allocated.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Well, I've already addressed the "finely democratic" in my first post.

I don't see how.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The fact that the right to join a Union has to be spelled out is a consequence of a governmental attitude whereby the individual has no rights until the State condescends to give them some. On the other hand, the drafters of the US constitution begun on the premise that the individual is inherently free, that the government is there to serve the people, and the government shall be delegated responsibility only to satisfy some social contract.

Firstly, the Irish Constitution has traditionally been one with a belief in natural law: that even if the State abolishes certain rights, it does not make them lawful (positivism) as they transcend governments and politics.
The whole point of rights isn't that they are granted by the State, they are inherent and inalienable objects which are so important that the State guarantees to protect them.

Second of all, unenumerated rights are part and parcel of the Irish Constitution:privacy isn't listed but it was held in the Kennedy case that the Irish Constitution doesn't list an exhaustible number of rights (due to the use of "in particular" when referring to rights).

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Hence Article 1, Section 8, where what Congress can do is spelt out, as opposed to what the individual can do.

You couldn't have picked a worse example, given your previous claims that the American Constitution is superior. Art 1, S.8 is a fine example of the nebulous aspect of the American Constitution and can be used to justify pretty much anything (for example, you would presumably find Obama's healthcare plan unconstitutional but it is allowed precisely because of Art 1, S.8 based around the levying of taxes to provide for the general welfare of the American citizens.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh please.
As opposed to the US Constitution which allowed the censorship of communist material (and criminalised support for communism), obscene pornography and has allowed things like the PATRIOT ACT and even constitutionally banned alcohol (luckily this was repealed)

Manach

Regarding freedom of speech, may I point out in Section 40.6.1 (Irish Cons.) where the seditious expression is restricted where it interfers with the authority of the State. This is legislated under the Official Secrets Act, 1963.
I hope nobody tells the poster's of "After Hours"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PhotogTom

Our democracy is a hell of a lot more healthy than the American version. Our PR;STV system ensures we have a wide range of choices for the Dáil rather than the two-party system of the US. We currently have 5 parties represented in the Dáil (plus Independents which include the PD remnants) and in the next election, PBP and the SP will probably gain seats as well.

Hi, not sure how you manage the quotes but .. .
I think you've put your finger on it here. Can you tell me exactly how Fine Gael, Labor and Sin Fein are "represented" in the Dail? As far as I can tell, they may as well stay home. They have no hope of proposing legislation, changing legislation or influencing it in any way.
And, besides the point by point comparisons of the two constitutions made above, this is the crux of the matter.
Further, because Fine Gael, et al have no part in government, they are free to say "Yeah, its really messed up, we would have done much better" because they aren't in the least invested in what has happened. They are superfluous until such time as the next election and, at that point their main campaign approach will be "But we aren't Fine Fail"!
By involving the opposition parties much more on a day to day basis, which is what I would suggest is the on the ground reality in the US, those parties can't simply throw stones. Their actions have meaning and they have to take responsiblity for them.
Maybe it is the party whip system that I'm complaining about, but, to be honest I don't know that much about the day to day workings of the party system here.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was more referring to the Communist Control Act which both outlawed the CPUSA and criminalized membership of and support for the party.
It was of no help to freedom of speech in state law either: the transportation of communist material was illegal in Lousiania in 1998 (I'm unsure as to whether or not this has been repealed) (The Subversive Activities and Communist Control Act)

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Merely that a Supreme Court Justice says something does not make it Constitutional. That's why there's such things as dissenting opinions.
For example, the execution of minors was deemed unconstitutional in Roper v Simmons (2005). I can quote Justices Scalia or O'Connor in arguments about the constitutionality of such rulings but it does not change the fact that these were dissenting opinions and that the SCOTUS' ruling was the opposite of what these individual judges argued.
As it stands, the SCOTUS has ruled since 1973 that obscene pornography is not protected by the Ist Amendment.

donegalfella wrote: »

Things are not so complex in Ireland, where the constitutional prohibition on publishing indecent material (note the legal difference between indecent and obscene) has meant that even soft-core magazines such as Playboy were banned here for many decades. Ireland still has a very long list of banned magazines, videos, novels, and so on. Most of this material is available freely in the United States.

Yes but obscenity is in itself something that is completely open to interpretation (my idea of obscenity would probably be substantially different to yours)
In effect, both Ireland and the US Constitutions allow restrictions on pornography. The difference being that the American judiciary interpreted it in a broader sense.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But the Act as a whole has not been struck down. And I'm sure you and I would both agree that the entire set up is abhorrent.
The US is a common-law country: all bills passed by the legislature are given the automatic presumption of constitutionality unless is proven otherwise, so by default, the SCOTUS allows the PATRIOT Act, and yet it has only struck down certain parts of the Bill, despite being presented with an inherently odious document.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I really don't see what your point is here. Are you saying the unamended Constitution was grand but that it was only the amendments which were wrong?

Lockstep

PhotogTom wrote: »

Hi, not sure how you manage the quotes but .. .

To quote someone, it's

JoeBloggs* wrote:

insert text here [/quote*]

Remove the * and you'll be grand.

PhotogTom wrote: »

I think you've put your finger on it here. Can you tell me exactly how Fine Gael, Labor and Sin Fein are "represented" in the Dail? As far as I can tell, they may as well stay home. They have no hope of proposing legislation, changing legislation or influencing it in any way.

They are represented in that they have members in the Dáil who are able to vote on the issues (the same as in any parliament). The government's ability to pass legislation relies on its ability to keep all of its backbenchers and coalition partners on board (for example, Fianna Fáil has a razor thin majority in the Dáil and needs to ensure all of its members and partners are at votes, or else they are liable to lose). Furthermore, coalition partners have and will continue to leave the government should it become to precarious (for example, Labour left its coalition with Fianna Fáil and formed a new government with Fine Gael and Democratic Left) whereas nowadays, FF are losing votes from independents left right and centre.

Likewise, you don't need to be in government to propose a Bill (and non-governmental members are incredibly influential in the passing of a Bill) whereas a house can amend a Bill as it stands.

PhotogTom wrote: »

And, besides the point by point comparisons of the two constitutions made above, this is the crux of the matter.
Further, because Fine Gael, et al have no part in government, they are free to say "Yeah, its really messed up, we would have done much better" because they aren't in the least invested in what has happened. They are superfluous until such time as the next election and, at that point their main campaign approach will be "But we aren't Fine Fail"!

It is theoretically possible but that's an extremely patronising view of the Irish electorate that they will vote a party in, even if it has no policies. As terrible as the Irish electorate can be, they don't vote people in merely for throwing stones.
Every other party in Ireland is critical of FF's policies but they're not going to get any votes unless they propose viable alternatives. Otherwise, eloquent and entertaining but otherwise policyless candidates like Joe Higgins would get in every time.

PhotogTom wrote: »

By involving the opposition parties much more on a day to day basis, which is what I would suggest is the on the ground reality in the US, those parties can't simply throw stones. Their actions have meaning and they have to take responsiblity for them.
Maybe it is the party whip system that I'm complaining about, but, to be honest I don't know that much about the day to day workings of the party system here.

You don't need to be in the government to put a bill forward: any member of the Oireachtas can put forward a Private Members Bill, regardless of political
affiliation and either house of the Oireachtas can amend a bill in its committee stage.

Manach

In regard Private member's bills, offhand the chances of any them passing are fairly low (I'd need to check www.irishstatatuebook.ie to confirm).
One positive contribution the opposition does make is that by tradiation they chair the public accounts committee so are at least about to influence economic policy some what.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Mainly that the Irish Constitution isn't some piece of hogwash which is outclassed by the American version.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, Bunreacht na hÉireann includes more rights than the American version. I wouldn't automatically say it is better but rubbishing the Irish Constitution and glorifying the American Constitution is silly.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, I was responding to claims that the American Constitution is somehow better, when in fact, both contain broadly similar articles (liberal democratic constitutions are usually drawn along familiar lines).

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't believe I ever denied that the Irish Constitution engages in censorship. However, it is no different to the US in this regard which has banned obscene pornography, communist support and Lady Chatterly's Lover
Both guarantee free speech and expression, both also allow limits on their use. Makes sense really.

donegalfella wrote: »

You ignore the Irish constitution's Articles 2 and 3, which, until 1999, claimed "the whole island of Ireland" as "national territory," and thus constituted what Conor Cruise O'Brien called an "irredentist annexationist claim" to the territory of another nation state.

You're completely ignoring the context of when it was written: when Ireland was arbitrarily divided, lumping in even those states which had Nationalist majorities into a state they had no wish to be part of.
At any rate, this is an article which has been removed: it is no longer part of the Irish Constitution. At the time, it was understandable. Right now, it is no longer an issue.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

First of all, get your claims right: McQuaid was not Archbishop of Dublin when the Constitution was drafted.
Secondly, it was criticised by Catholics for being overly secular: De Valera resisted calls from McQuaid to make it explicitly Catholic, and once Pope Pius XI read a copy of it, he withdrew his support for the document.
Catholic articles: the prohibition of divorce, Article 44.1.2 (which merely states that the majority of Irish citizens follow Roman Catholicism, Article 41.3.2 recognizes other religions) Michael Gallagher notes that aside from this, there is nothing visibly Catholic about the Constitution.
When the Constitution was released, it was supported by all of the other religions in Ireland (Church of Ireland, Jewish etc) whereas the Catholic Church (including the Pope and McQuaid) voiced both their opposition to the lack of inclusion of Catholicism as the one true faith and their opposition to the term 'church' being used for other religions at all.
It's also important to note that the first major opposition to the religious aspect of the Constitution came from the ultra-Catholic Maria Duce group.
While I am not a fan of De Valera, his decision to explicitly recognize Judaism was not without merit in 1930s Europe.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Which have since been amended out.
Constitutions are living documents, for them to be otherwise would mean living by the 'rule of the dead'.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Firstly, you're leaving out Article 42.3.2 which allows the State to intervene in the raising of children, so it's not a case of the State allowing free license to parents to do what they will within marriage.
Secondly, the Constitution doesn't define what marriage is.
I'd agree that rights for single parents and cohabiters should be looked at (I'd favour the deletion of Article 41.3.1 overall)

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Unenumerated rights? These are part and parcel of pretty much every constitution. Including the American Constitution (The IX Amendment)

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree with you here: this is an issue which will soon be corrected. The Constitutional Review Group has recommended it be deleted and the All Party Committee has endorsed this decision.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Catholic: no. I've responded to this above.
Nationalist: possibly.
Parochial: How?
Prescriptive: Given the wide ranging enumerated and unenumerated rights, this if far from the case.

You are honestly saying that a Constitution which protected slavery and enumerated that blacks were to be viewed as 3/5ths of a person as a masterpiece of Enlightenment political theory?

I have few problems with the US Constitution, it's a fine document but I don't understand the fetishizing of it a some sort of liberal bible, especially when compared to the Irish Constitution which for it's faults, is a fine document, especially when read in the context of it's time. Even nowadays, a few amendments are all that is needed to bring it up to speed with modern times. Whatever can be said about the Irish Constitution, it was not written permitting slavery or that blacks were lesser humans.

Lockstep

Manach wrote: »

In regard Private member's bills, offhand the chances of any them passing are fairly low (I'd need to check www.irishstatatuebook.ie to confirm).

This is correct, there have been 15 PMBs passed in 65 years (although more common is the government accepting bills put forward by the opposition)

The main influence that opposition members have is in the third, committee stage of the bill's progress

Eliot Rosewater

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Mainly as the Irish Constitution recognises that freedom of speech has its limitations: should I have a constitutional right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and be acquitted on the grounds of free speech?

(The general issue of free speech is off-topic in this thread; if you wish to discuss it elsewhere I will. For the moment we should keep it relevant to the respective countries' implementation of it, I think.)

With regards the the US First Amendment, you said that "No, it really isn't" (in response to me saying it's better than the Irish alternative). What makes you believe this? As donegalfella has repeatedly pointed out, the Irish State has an absolutely abysmal record of censorship. It's ironic that Ulysess, though championed as one of the greatest works of Irish art, couldn't even be bought and sold in Joyce's place of birth because of legitimate fears on behalf of the publisher that it would be censored and printed copies of it destroyed.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

What I'm saying is that merely because a system works in one country does not mean it will work in the other.

A fair point. As I said before though, there is a lot separating the Irish system and the American one. Just because the American system as a whole wouldn't work here does not mean some of its ideals could not be implemented.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Our democracy is a hell of a lot more healthy than the American version. Our PR;STV system ensures we have a wide range of choices for the Dáil rather than the two-party system of the US.

Other than PR-STV, which I agree is commendable, what else has Ireland's system got going for it? The benefits of the American system are numerous, as I outlined in my first post on this thread.

Even with PR-STV we have very little choice: FG and FF are very much alike, and Labour isn't even that different. (In my own constituency I can't choose Labour as the third seat will go either to FG or FF.) The strength of the Whip further damages our democracy. At least in the States members of the same party are free to vote against each other, and they do, I might add (especially pre-08).

The primary system in America also has a lot of merit. Even though people will vote for one of the two parties, they can customise, through the primary system, what, say, the Republican Representative or Senator will stand for. The success of the Tea Party at the primaries is a testament to this dynamic nature. In Ireland voting for one member of FF is the same as voting for another because they will all toe the same line through the Whip.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Mainly because the Irish Courts have been extremely dubious about getting involved in socio-economic cases.

But I wasn't suggesting that the courts should deal with socio-economic matters; I was suggesting that a Legislative body independent of the Executive should. When Bertie Ahern decided to purchase the 2002 election with unsustainable and unwarranted increases in government spending (for example, Jobseeker's allowance) there was no one there to stop him. When Barack Obama wanted a stimulus package he had to jump through hoops for the US Congress. The separation of powers, here, puts a stop (however small) to politicians like Ahern who get to rule the country without any meaningful restriction.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The whole point of rights isn't that they are granted by the State, they are inherent and inalienable objects which are so important that the State guarantees to protect them.

Fair enough.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You couldn't have picked a worse example, given your previous claims that the American Constitution is superior.

But I wasn't using Article 1 section 8 to make some some structural point; I was using it to show a difference of approach and attitude in the US Constitution.

Lockstep

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

With regards the the US First Amendment, you said that "No, it really isn't" (in response to me saying it's better than the Irish alternative). What makes you believe this? As donegalfella has repeatedly pointed out, the Irish State has an absolutely abysmal record of censorship. It's ironic that Ulysess, though championed as one of the greatest works of Irish art, couldn't even be bought and sold in Joyce's place of birth because of legitimate fears on behalf of the publisher that it would be censored and printed copies of it destroyed.

The point is that both are essentially the same thing (free speech, which can be limited when required)
Nearly all liberal-democratic constitutions follow this reasoning, the Irish Judiciary interpreted it for things like porn and books whereas the US Judiciary used it to crack down on communism, Lady Chatterly's lover and obscene pornography.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

A fair point. As I said before though, there is a lot separating the Irish system and the American one. Just because the American system as a whole wouldn't work here does not mean some of its ideals could not be implemented.

This is true to an extent. There aspects I like of the American Constitution, although broadly the two follow very similar lines.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Other than PR-STV, which I agree is commendable, what else has Ireland's system got going for it? The benefits of the American system are numerous, as I outlined in my first post on this thread.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Even with PR-STV we have very little choice: FG and FF are very much alike, and Labour isn't even that different. (In my own constituency I can't choose Labour as the third seat will go either to FG or FF.) The strength of the Whip further damages our democracy. At least in the States members of the same party are free to vote against each other, and they do, I might add (especially pre-08).

PR:STV gives far more choice than the FPTP system. While you may feel FG and FF are very alike, the PR:STV system means that other parties like Labour and Sinn Féin can get into the Dáil. Even more important is that Independants stand a very real chance of getting elected, which almost never happens in FPTP systems.
If you have a massive problem with your FF and FG candidates, you can always run yourself. The transfer system means that a candidate has a chance to get in whereas this almost never happens in alternate systems.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The primary system in America also has a lot of merit. Even though people will vote for one of the two parties, they can customise, through the primary system, what, say, the Republican Representative or Senator will stand for. The success of the Tea Party at the primaries is a testament to this dynamic nature. In Ireland voting for one member of FF is the same as voting for another because they will all toe the same line through the Whip.

The primary system only benefits those who are members of the party in the first place. While you are correct in that it allows some variation within the parties (Paleoconservative and Tea Partiers) these are still constrained within the remit of the Republican Party system. To get the nomination, you still need the votes within the party so for example, a socialist would have no chance of a Republican nomination (and a very slim chance in the Democratic Party)
In Ireland, while our party whip system is stronger than that of the US (they also have a whip system, but it is weaker), if a candidate is popular enough, they can leave the party and still be reelected as an Independent or jump ship to another party.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

But I wasn't suggesting that the courts should deal with socio-economic matters; I was suggesting that a Legislative body independent of the Executive should. When Bertie Ahern decided to purchase the 2002 election with unsustainable and unwarranted increases in government spending (for example, Jobseeker's allowance) there was no one there to stop him. When Barack Obama wanted a stimulus package he had to jump through hoops for the US Congress. The separation of powers, here, puts a stop (however small) to politicians like Ahern who get to rule the country without any meaningful restriction.

I can see your point here, however, the American system has its own pitfalls: to get the healthcare bill passed, pork barrel earmarks of grackler like proportions were needed to secure the bills passage.
The problem arises in securing a watchdog that can be independant and yet manages to be somehow accountable without being able to hold the country to ransom.
I'd be up for change in this regard, I just don't know how yet:(

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

But I wasn't using Article 1 section 8 to make some some structural point; I was using it to show a difference of approach and attitude in the US Constitution.

Well, for me, A.1 S.8 shows the problems you were outlining with the Irish Constitution (you seemed to be critical of the defence clauses within the Irish Constitution, whereas the American Constitution holds pretty much the same ideas).

Eliot Rosewater

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The point is that both are essentially the same thing (free speech, which can be limited when required)

I see your point. However the Irish constitution seems to me to be much more limited, and this perception is in keeping with this countries dire censorship record.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The primary system only benefits those who are members of the party in the first place.

Yes. My point wasn't really that the two parties accommodate all views, it was that the two parties accommodate much more diverse views than any two parties in Ireland. You could argue that the FPTP system has spawned this: in order to have your say you need to join a party getting elected, and FPTP tends towards a smaller number of parties.

I would be in favour of keeping PR-STV. Even in one seat constituencies it is better than FPTP because it allows a voter to cast their vote irrespective of the electoral mathematics. You could see this in the British election: in seats where Conservatives might have won, Labour voters voted Lib Dem, giving Labour a disproportionate share of the vote compared to the national average.

I employ voting tactics myself at the ballot box, I just don't think they should for the mainstay of ones vote. So, in summary, I agree with you about PR-STV!!

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'd be up for change in this regard, I just don't know how yet

I think that's a sensible attitude. A split power system has its pros and its cons, and it's important to balance these and not jump to conclusions too fast. (I'm not sure if that makes me a hypocrite now! )

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Well, for me, A.1 S.8 shows the problems you were outlining with the Irish Constitution (you seemed to be critical of the defence clauses within the Irish Constitution, whereas the American Constitution holds pretty much the same ideas).

I was addressing the sentiment of A.1 S.8 more than its actual detail.

View

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

When Bertie Ahern decided to purchase the 2002 election with unsustainable and unwarranted increases in government spending (for example, Jobseeker's allowance) there was no one there to stop him.

Actually there was. The body concerned is called the Oireachtas. Unfortunately though, the members of it have chosen to devalue their own institution over the years reducing it to essentially expensive rubber-stamp assemblies. Indeed, if anything, the Dail tends to show less back-bone then the Seanad.

Eliot Rosewater

View wrote: »

Actually there was. The body concerned is called the Oireachtas.

Well, not really. In Ireland the executive will always have control over the lower house. That's my problem: there is an inherent lack of separation of powers. If the executive want something they get it because they already control the potential opposition, the Oireachtas, by virtue of their position.

View

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Well, not really. In Ireland the executive will always have control over the lower house. That's my problem: there is an inherent lack of separation of powers. If the executive want something they get it because they already control the potential opposition, the Oireachtas, by virtue of their position.

The Executive does not control the Oireachtas. Rather the Oireachtas - in theory - controls the Executive. In practice, however, the Oireachtas has allowed itself to become a rubber-stamp assembly for the Executive by agreeing to whatever the Executive wants. That is the Oireachtas' fault.

"Seperation of powers" doesn't actually prevent this from happening. If the US Congress starts following a policy of rubber-stamping everything the US Executive proposes and ignoring its role as a initiator of independent legislation, it too could very easily act much like the Oireachtas.

Eliot Rosewater

View wrote: »

The Executive does not control the Oireachtas. Rather the Oireachtas - in theory - controls the Executive.

Yes, but with the party whip system and the tight control the leader of any party has over his members, the theory goes out the window.

View wrote: »

If the US Congress starts following a policy of rubber-stamping everything the US Executive proposes and ignoring its role as a initiator of independent legislation, it too could very easily act much like the Oireachtas.

Not really. Fundamentally, the Congressional elections are totally distinct from the Presidential election. In Ireland the election for the executive and for the legislature is one and the same thing, resulting in the same person controlling both.

So the people of the United States could vote a Democrat into the Presidency, and fill Congress with Republicans, and there's simply no way that that Democrat will be able to control those Republicans.

The actual strength of the US system is accentuated by the relatively soft sense of party allegiance: Senators and Congressmen often vote contrary to their Party Line. When an Irish TD votes against his party it's seen as so radical that it makes front-page news for nearly a week. That's a depressing fact.

RDM_83 again

Sorry for completely of topic question but I remember being told that in the early years of the state they tried to prevent the Dail grouping in parties, I can't find any info online that states this is the case.

as another aside we can't be surprised by the strength of the Irish whip system it was our gift to Westminster

View

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Yes, but with the party whip system and the tight control the leader of any party has over his members, the theory goes out the window.

The theory goes out the window because the party members choose to allow themselves to be tightly controlled by the party whip.

There is no reason why they couldn't decide to push through more private member bills, vote in amendments over ministerial objections etc.

It is interesting that they don't do so - it probably reflects a belief that the electorate don't actually understand that the Oireachtas is primarily a legislature.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Not really. Fundamentally, the Congressional elections are totally distinct from the Presidential election. In Ireland the election for the executive and for the legislature is one and the same thing, resulting in the same person controlling both.

So the people of the United States could vote a Democrat into the Presidency, and fill Congress with Republicans, and there's simply no way that that Democrat will be able to control those Republicans.

I do (more-or-less) understand the US electoral cycle. I also get the point you make that following the mid-term elections, that the US usually experiences "co-habitation" (to use the French term).

However, prior to the mid-terms, it is in theory perfectly possible for Congress to degenerate to a rubber-stamp assembly. It doesn't though.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The actual strength of the US system is accentuated by the relatively soft sense of party allegiance: Senators and Congressmen often vote contrary to their Party Line. When an Irish TD votes against his party it's seen as so radical that it makes front-page news for nearly a week. That's a depressing fact.

I agree with you here. Largely, I think it may be size related. Congress operates on a different scale to the Oireachtas. It represents the interests of essentially a large part of a continent. The closest European approximation to it in terms of size and interests represented would be the European Parliament where MEPs do tend to be less rigid in following the party whip.

The Oireachtas, on the other hand, operates more on the scale of (let's say) the Idaho legislature - that is to say, it has a narrow band in which to operate. There just isn't the stage (or the spoils) there for a major clash of interest groups such as the US can experience.

Irish politics has largely been driven by property development and land ownership. There isn't, for instance, a high-tech lobby group out there competing with those interest groups for the attention of the Oireachtas. Indeed, for all the attention developments in those areas get from the media, you'd be hard put to know they mattered to the economy at all. With the Irish media, it is much easier to hear about the results of soccer matches and/or the prices from the Athenry cattle mart than to find out the latest hi-tech and/or Wall Street developments.

kaiser sauze

The advantages of the Irish system over the US one?

There are certainly not many, but both have their flaws and both have their strong points.

I do get very angry when I hear people shouting "abolish the Seanad and/or The Presidency". Those people need to wise up and instead of taking away the few checks on the executive branch we have we need to strengthen them as it is very clear that there are virtually none right now.

We need a new Legislature where we have either a stronger Seanad or a unicameral system where the government are not in total control of proceedings in that/those house/s. The situation we have now is farcical with ministers simply reading a script that a civil servant has served up for them.

There is also a case for removing government from the Legislature entirely and hiring people to run the portfolios who actually have experience in that field. Once the government are properly answerable to the Legislature, either would be fine with me.

We also need a stronger Presidency, where that individual who has been directly, and democratically, elected, can decide to refuse to sign a bill if they believe that it is not constitutional or even if they believe it is not what the Irish people want. That person should not need to refer that bill to The Supreme Court-as they do now-to test its constitutionality, although that power could be left in place as an option.

The main issue I have with The US is the filibuster in The Senate. That is not in their Constitution and is leading to far too many bottlenecks that prevent meaningful reforms from getting through.

Another issue with The US is that the constitution has been left too vague in places. Healthcare is a very recent example. You will have the super-rich over there decrying any interruption of their income stream and claiming that healthcare is not defined as a right-and they are correct-in the document. This simplistic, immoral and irrational argument has meant it took 60+ years to even get anywhere near coverage for the majority of US people. This debate was had in just about every other advanced nation 60+ years ago and they all, implicitly, decided that treatment for illnesses was a right and should not be held against you if you do not have the money.