Irish presidency vastly better than our Governor-General

Every so often the monarchists come out with something so incredibly wrong, you have to assume they have deliberitly ignored the facts in an attempt to manipulate the debate. It astounds me that otherwise intelligent people can make such obviously incorrect claims.

 

Take, for example, this article on the ACM's website attacking Ireland's recent presidential election. Where to start on this one? The author claimed that the second-placed Sean Gallagher has been "proved" to be corrupt. You'd expect then, by the normal standards of British justice, that there would've been a trail when it was found Mr Gallagher was corrupt (I'm talking about the presumption of innocence - you know, that old cornerstone to the criminal justice system). In any case, this is hardly a good argument: because the Irish head of state is elected, the people of Ireland were able to make their own judgment on Gallagher's alledged corrupt dealings. Hence the former front runner lost the election.

 

Compare that with, say, the tenure of a certain former Governor-General of Australia, Peter Hollingworth - a good mate, by the way, of the guy who advised the Queen to appoint him, Prime Minister John Howard - was dealt with. The Australian people had no chance to assess Mr Hollingworth's dealings as head of the Anglican Church in Australia, it was take it our leave it. And then when allegations did surface, the only person who could remove Hollingworth from office - the Prime Minister, who alone can advise the Queen to dismiss the Governor-General, who not do so because they were mates. Score one to the Irish presidency, nil to the Governor-General.

 

Then the ACM states that because the overall winner of the election, Michael D. Higgins, was a former cabinet minister, he is a "party hack". This side-steps the fact that Irish presidents have resigned their party memberships on election to the office, as Mr Higgins did during his victory speech at Dublin Castle.

Technically, they're all independents. Compare that with the number of party hacks appointed to the office of Governor-General. Remember Billy Hayden anyone? In New Zealand, we've even had a former Prime Minister, Keith Holyoake, appointed to the role by his own party. Sure the Irish presidents are often from a political party, but that doesn't make them hacks, nor does that mean Prime Ministers can automatically be trusted to get it right. I should add that one of the main criticisms of the Irish president is the fact that they're nominated by the Irish parliament or local authorities, effectively meaning the political parties control the nominations process. Score two to the Irish presidency, nil to the Governor-General.

The author then takes a swipe at Martin McGuinness, former IRA commander and the Sinn Fein candidate. McGuiness finished a distant third. Apparently the fact McGuiness placed third shows the evil of the system. Putting aside McGuiness's atonement for the crimes of the IRA and his dedication to the Northern Ireland peace process, the fact he didn't win again reflects the strength of democracy in Ireland, not a weakness. Compare that to, say, Lords Lieutenants past of Ireland who committed henous violent crimes in the name of the British Crown. No-one ever got the chance to vote on them.

 

And then we hear that the Republic of Ireland is deeply corrupt. Not as corrupt, according to the Corruption Perceptions Index, as the monarchies of the United Kingdom, Japan, Belgium, Barbados and Qatar - all of whom rank highly on the index. Interestingly, Ireland is ranked 8 out of ten in 2010 - and has made strong progress since 2003 when it received a score of 6.9. In the same period, the United Kingdom - home of the monarchy the ACM defends - has declined rapidly. No-one is claiming Ireland is not corrupt, but to state that Ireland's problems relate to the level of corruption in the country is wrong - especially since there are monarchies that are more corrupt. The author strangely claims the fact Irish ministers and MPs have faced criminal charges is a bad thing. No, it is a sign of a system able to deal to corruption.

 

The author then laughably claims that the Irish president was stripped of all of their reserve powers. This is totally wrong, and only a quick look at the Irish constitution and Irish political history disproves the claim. It is true that the Irish president doesn't have discretion to appoint the head of government, which is determined by the parliament. That doesn't mean the President doesn't have constitutional powers, and it appears the claim is made, as usual, in ignorance of how the constitutional conventions around the office of Governor-General work.

 

Under the Irish constitution, the president has reserve powers "in absolute discretion". They are:

This is essentially the powers of the Governor-General plus a number of additional powers to resolve disputes between Ireland's two houses, and the additional right our governors-general don't have to refer bills to referendums or to the Irish Supreme Court. However, the critical difference between governors-general and the Irish presidency is that because it is the Prime Minister who advises the Queen to appoint and dismiss the Governor-General, the ability of the Governor-General to use the reserve powers is severly curtailed. Their only real chance to use their powers is if, as Australia found in 1975, the Governor-General sacks a Prime Minister before they have the Governor-General sacked by the Queen: a Mexican-stand off in constitutional terms. In other words, the claim that the Irish system concentrates power in the hands of the Prime Minister is utterly false, the inconvienent truth for monarchists is that it is monarchies that concentrate power in the hands of prime ministers. Irish presidents have used their reserve powers, especially the power to refer bills to the Irish Supreme Court. Irish president three, Governor-General nil.

 

Nonetheless, the author also claim the Irish upper house is appointed, which is totally incorrect. It is only partially appointed, in the sense that the Irish prime minister appoints a certain number of members. The rest are appointed through other means - partially through universities and partially through Vocational Panels, made up of different groups. The vocational panels actually elect senators. This isn't exactly democratic (probably because it's modelled on the House of Lords) but is not appointed as the author claims.

 

The author then concludes his attack on Ireland by calling the country a fiscal basket-case, a result of the political system. Not only is this wrong, it also ignores the fact that there are a number of other monarchies (Japan, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Belgium) with greater levels of public debt to GDP than Ireland. Moreover, the reason for Ireland's current debt position is largely due to the fact the country had a huge property bubble burst while it was trying to stablise its banking sector through a retail deposit gaurantee scheme. Sound fimiliar? That's right - the same scheme that gave Ireland its high levels of public debt exists in most other western democracies, including Australia and New Zealand. We're just fortunate enough that our property bubbles haven't (yet) burst.

 

And finally, the author takes a swipe at India and Pakistan. India's presidency is a fairly good example of stability amongst the caos of Indian politics. Pakistan is a product of Pakistan's own instability - hardly a reason to attack the Irish presidency.