President of Ireland: just like the Queen, but elected

An excerpt from the UK's Channel Four report on the race for the Irish presidency. A great overview of the office, and an example of what elections for a non-executive position look like.

Send by email

Comments

Submitted by Spadj on 20 October, 2011 - 01:07.

Why should Protestant backlash matter? If anything, it is exactly why CIR was needed:, Switzerland used its direct democracy to create harmony about 4 linguistic groups and 2 clashing religions by decentralising decision making. It's obvious why they took them out: since when has any monopoly body preferred perfect competition (millions and millions of voters preferences and them debating idea) over itself retaining a monopoly on power? Nobel-laureate James Buchannan provides an insight:

[S]uppose that a-monopoly right is to-be auctioned: whom-will we predict-to be the highest-bidder? Surely, we-can presume that the person-who-intends to-exploit the monopoly power most fully, the one for whom the expected profit is highest, will be among-the-highest-bidders-for-the-franchise. In-the-same way, positions-of-political power will tend to attract those persons who place higher values on the possession of such power. These persons will tend to be the highest bidders in the allocation of political offices...Is there not the overwhelming-presumption that offices will be secured by those who value power most highly and who seek to use such power of discretion in the furtherance of their personal projects, be these moral or otherwise? Genuine public-interest motivations may exist and may even be widespread, but are these motivations sufficiently passionate to stimulate people to fight for political office, to compete with those whose passions include the desire to wield power over others?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

A Republic would be a very, very easy sell: just go up to the average British person in the street and ask them what they think of us, and then ask the people why shouldn’t we all be monarchs, or as the Swiss prefer to call themselves, “the Sovereign”? What monopoly of power, wisdom or fashion sense does the royal family have over any of us? Why should not the reserve powers be vested in the people themselves? Like my question about why people have never been given the chance to choose which system of government they want for their country, most of the answer to these questions collapse back into logically indefensible a priori privileging.

Submitted by LJ Holden on 23 October, 2011 - 15:40.

Oh I don't think protestant backlash has anything to do with it, I was just postulating as to why it was removed.

Chair, Republican Movement - contact me online or call on +64 27 699 1350

Submitted by Spadj on 18 October, 2011 - 01:32.

Error:

* Leichenstein and Swiss people certainly did NOT;

Ps Yes, Liechenstein is a monarchy, but its effectively an elected monarchy (the people retain the right to abolish the monarchy via direct democracy)

Submitted by Steven Spadijer on 18 October, 2011 - 01:28.

So, basically, the only people up for candidacy are former career politicans' and/or those with huge egos about how great they are (merit not necessarily a bad thing - but surely, there is more to choose from than grubby pollies? (Of course, it is worth noting that in countries like Austria, Finland and Iceland - where people can nominate candidates - politicans' get elected 50% or less or the time, compared to over 80% in Ireland where pollies can only nominate themselves).

And how, exactly, is that suppose to materially help the Irish economy? (I know, I know poor luck for the monarchy of Spain with its 45% youth unemployment!). But it is worth noting the 1922 Irish Constitution had direct democracy:

Veto of legislation: Once a bill had been approved by both houses of the Oireachtas (or just by the Dáil, if it had overridden the Senate) its enactment into law could be suspended if, within seven days, either a majority of the Senate or 40% of all members of the Dáil so requested. There would then be a further period of ninety days within which either 5% of all registered voters, or a 60% majority in the Senate, could demand a referendum on the bill. The referendum would be decided by a majority of votes cast. If rejected the bill would not become law. These provisions did not apply to money bills or bills declared by both houses to be "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety".
Initiative: Ordinary citizens would have the right, through an initiative process, to draft both constitutional amendments and ordinary laws, and insist that they be submitted to a referendum. The constitution provided a general framework for how the initiative would work, empowering the Oireachtas to fill in the details with legislation. It required that a proposal could be initiated by a petition of 50,000 registered voters. Once initiated a proposal would be referred to the Oireachtas, but if the Oireachtas did not adopt the law it would be obliged to submit it to a binding referendum. The constitution gave the Oireachtas two years to adopt a law allowing voters to introduce initiatives. However after this time voters had power to force the issue. This is because the initiative process itself could then by made the subject of an initiative. After two years the introduction of an initiative process would be put to a referendum if demanded by a petition of not less than 75 000 voters on the register (not more than fifteen thousand of whom could be voters in any one constituency).

The problem of the direct democracy provisions was contained in Article 50 which provided that, for eight years after the constitution came into force, the Oireachtas could amend the constitution without a referendum. As interpreted by the courts, this even included the power to amend the article itself and extend this period - so the pollies got rid of it without the consent of the people!!!!!!!!! (see Amendment No. 10 (12 July 1928): removing all direct democracy provisions except the requirement that, after a transitional period, a referendum be held on all constitutional amendments; this remaining provision would never be allowed to come into effect, followed by removing references to the Governor-General).

Does anyone seriously believe the First (real) Republican constitution would have abdicated their Sovereignty and love of Democracy to the EU - with its mass misery and mass unemployment? The Leichenstein and Swiss certainly; the German states which have direct democracy are running initiatives to hold a referendum on the EU.

Does anyone seriously believe their current constitution is more Republican than the the 1922 "Free State" constitution?

Is it any surprise that monarchists have a (historical) case in arguing all a Republic means is more power to career politicans' given often attempts to remove the Crown from a constitution are associated with centralising, anti-democratic attempts to limit people power?

Of course, I'll be arguing against the Irish model (verison II) and in favour of the Irish model (version I).

Both Australians' and New Zealanders should vote 'no' to a politicans' Republic - but at least the Republic movement of NZ is better run than the ARM and dare to mention Switzerland as a list of models!!!

Submitted by LJ Holden on 19 October, 2011 - 19:25.

Exactly right Spadj - as I've said before, the Irish republic is a good example of what not to do with the nomination process. It's important to note that one of Keith Locke's proposal was for public nominations and direct election of the head of state. As we can see from Parliamentary republics that do have public nominations, the spectre of washed-up politicians running for office does not arise (as an aside it's interesting to note that the current leading candidate, Sean Gallagher, is not a career politician but received his nomination from a party, while the other leading candidate has called for changes to the way the nomination process works).

I never knew there were direct democracy provisions in the original Irish constitution. I wonder why they took them out? Perhaps they were worried about a protestant back-lash?

Chair, Republican Movement - contact me online or call on +64 27 699 1350