Is Convention Too Important in Irish Politics?

later12

Over the past number of weeks we have been hearing a lot about political convention.

Mary McAleese, it was suggested on boards, could not speak about nor criticise aspects of the financial crisis because it would be against protocol (even if it were legally in keeping with the constitution). Last week we had the newspapers commenting on how the former Bertie Ahern broke with the time honoured convention of Taoisigh never criticising Taoisigh when he spoke against Brian Cowen's management skills. There is also a convention that if TDs vote other than on party lines, they lose the whip. If a Government bill fails the Oireachtas, the Government falls. All of this is convention. Why?

For such a young country, why do we cling so tenaciously and, I would suggest, so prematurely, to political traditions?

Eliot Rosewater

There's separate issues for each of those, some of which aren't symptoms of tradition, I think,

Backbencher TDs will toe the party line, at least publicly, because they want something out of their party. They might be looking for future promotion to a ministry or committee chair, which they will only get if they've been "loyal". At worst, they risk losing their party's sponsorship at the next election, which would force them to contest it as an independent and without the major resources that parties can deliver. And they will also lose votes from people who voted for them primarily because of their party affiliation.

As regards the government and the Oireactas, one should not generally draw a large distinction between them as they are so tightly "fused" together. If a government bill fails the Oireachtas (a very rare thing indeed) it generally, I suppose, spells the end of that government's ability to legislate and, as such, keep in office.

The president generally keeps quiet because there is a cultural (traditional) expectation that the office be "above politics". This expectation is usually announced as a high-minded platitude, but I personally see no use to it. Other heads of states, like Barack Obama, are heavily embroiled in political wrangling, and I have yet to see how that negatively impacts upon their ceremonial duties. This country would, in my view, have a lot to gain from a stronger president.

To answer the general question, I think people are inherently conservative and like tradition. People vote along familial lines, and they tend to favour larger more established parties (FF & FG) when there seems little reason to do that, from a policy perspective.

goose2005

Part of the reason why the President is discouraged from making concrete statements is that she has to sign a Bill even if she disagrees with it - she can refer it to the Supreme Court to check its constitutionality but they can order her to sign it if they say it's OK.