Dr Martin ManserghAge does not necessarily make a leader wiser or more mature, writes Martin Mansergh
No opinion polls predicted a Tory overall majority in the British election. They predicted a hung parliament. Opinion polls in referendums are even less reliable. None predicted that the people would vote to retain the Seanad. Voters on Friday need not be influenced by polls predicting a large ‘yes’ majority in the marriage referendum, although the margin is narrowing. The polls, along with unanimity amongst political parties, have been used to try and create an irresistible bandwagon effect necessary to overcome natural hesitations.
A few concluding reflections offer themselves. Same-sex marriage, if it passes, will supersede civil partnership, created five years ago. Civil partnership was criticised then from a religious viewpoint as too close to de facto marriage, where, one suspects, it is now seen as preferable to the full-blown thing and capable of enhancement. Further consequences, legal, constitutional and for society, of same-sex marriage being endorsed have not been coherently worked through, despite some recent legislation. There is no provision yet for a conscience clause for voluntary bodies. Many will be dismayed, not at the separation of Church and State (which is a recognised and sensible principle, unless applied in the rigid ideological manner characteristic of the French Republic), but at the gulf between them.
Most readers will be unfamiliar with more esoteric arguments from outside the mainstream media. There is a Marxist argument that capitalism requires the abolition of marriage, because “breaking up the family expands the market” (Church & State, Second Quarter, 2015). Village magazine (May 2015) argues that a truly radical egalitarian agenda would be to undermine State support for marriage, not extend “the unfair privilege”, but that, perversely, “perhaps undermining it is the best thing gay marriage can do to this complacent institution”.
Natural mother
Sadly, in Ireland and other countries, up to a few decades ago, a child’s right to its natural mother, was often cruelly ignored by Church, State and society, if she was unmarried.
There is a second referendum, also invoking the principle of equality, the lowering of the age eligibility to be President of Ireland from 35 to 21. Since the proposal was announced, a Latin phrase used by Charles Haughey keeps coming to mind, de minimis. Certainly, it is hard to think of a less pressing or more minimalist constitutional reform.
The drafters of the Constitution certainly looked at the American constitution. The Dáil, for instance, is referred to in Article 15.1.2˚ as a ‘House of Representatives’. A candidate for the US Presidency, the world’s most powerful elected executive office, has to be 35 years old. It is unlikely that Americans would lower the age to 21 in the name of equality, with the finger on the button and all that. That proposal here, regarding an office that is Head of State not Head of Government, does not carry remotely the same risks.
The office of President performs multiple functions. First, it is a visible demonstration that this State is a Republic. Secondly, it provides a symbolic focus of loyalty, independent of the government of the day. Thirdly, it is one of the safeguards against the abuse of power. The President, after consulting the Council of State, can refer legislation to the Supreme Court for a verdict on its constitutionality, in whole or in part. He or she can also refuse to grant dissolution of the Dáil to a Taoiseach who has lost a vote of confidence there. Both powers are potentially important democratic safeguards.
Function
The President also has an important representative function. It shows respect to new foreign ambassadors and the States they represent that they present their credentials to the President, rather than to, say, a Minister or Minister of State. When the President makes a State visit abroad, he or she is accompanied by a Minister and often by a delegation which will use the access provided to forge new commercial or other engagements.
At home, the President provides support and encouragement to civic-minded groups, and recognises on behalf of the State excellence and achievement individually and collectively. He or she also expresses the country’s grief on occasions of tragedy or loss. Presidents can also be a source of moral leadership.
One thinks of the reciprocal State visits between Britain and Ireland that symbolically cemented a new quality of relationship. President Michael D. Higgins has attended many ceremonies marking key events in the decade of centenaries, where he has taken a thoughtful, sensitive and inclusive approach, while avoiding tendentious re-interpretations or links to much more recent troubled events.
Abroad, some of the best examples of Presidents who have provided moral leadership come from Germany. Richard von Weiszäcker addressed the legacy of the Nazi past, and the current President, Joachim Gauck, a Lutheran pastor in the former German Democratic Republic, played a prominent role in the peaceful 1989 revolution and subsequently headed up the task of making the ubiquitous Stasi secret surveillance archives accessible to their victims.
Our nine Presidents to date have all served the country well. They have ranged from a pioneering cultural figure to senior politicians to those with a background in law. They have used their limited powers judiciously, and recent incumbents have expanded the influence of the office within its constitutional bounds.
Need
There are always those who will argue that we do not need the Presidency, any more than the Seanad, local government, or referendums, ostensibly on cost grounds. If democracy consists in checks and balances, the only effect of removing some of those is to strengthen further the Executive in an already highly centralised system of government.
In the history of mankind, many famous leaders, political and religious, have left their mark before the age of 35. Wisdom and maturity are not the exclusive preserve of older people. In our time, Malala Yousafzai, an outspoken victim of the Taliban’s hostility to women’s education, has won the Nobel Peace Prize, while still a teenager. It is not clear why the people need constrain themselves constitutionally from electing an adult under 35 as President.