In the wake of the recent referendum on local government much has been made of the low turnout and the high number of spoiled votes. Some commentators, and a number of leading politicians, have made reference to the McKenna judgment by way of explanation for this situation.

There has been a rush to offer the Supreme Court's ruling in the case which I initiated before the Maastricht Treaty referendum as the real reason for the "mess". Although the McKenna judgment has been widely misrepresented, I am pleased that in a recent editorial this newspaper held that the judgment was sound and a good decision. It rightly pointed out that the judgment in no way precludes Government leaders from advocating a Yes vote, or political parties and others from spending their own money campaigning for that.

For the record, what the judgment did say was that the Government's use of taxpayers' money to promote a Yes vote was "an interference with the democratic process" and "an infringement of the concept of equality which is fundamental to the democratic nature of the State". So it is only the spending of taxpayers' money on one side of a referendum debate that is embargoed. In fact, the Supreme Court said the Government had a duty to inform the public about the issue before them.

Much is made of the fact that in the recent referendum the public lacked information, but this referendum was not unique in that regard. During the Amsterdam referendum campaign, an opinion poll indicated that one-third of those who intended to vote Yes felt they did not have enough information on what they were agreeing to.

The Government's response to the McKenna judgment was the setting up of an independent Referendum Commission that would present both sides of the debate with equal emphasis to the voters. The way in which the commission has carried out its brief has been criticised, rightly or wrongly, particularly with regard to the recent local government referendum.

To blame the Referendum Commission is unfair given the Government's failure to produce a White Paper which would have stimulated debate, and also the omission from most parties' election literature and advertising of any information on the referendum. This cavalier attitude to amending the Constitution shows disrespect for the Constitution, the basic law of the State, and sets a dangerous precedent for future constitutional changes.

In an article on this page one week ago Senator Feargal Quinn suggested that "The chorus of 109,066 spoiled votes is an eloquent expression of discontent with that system" and went on to ask what we might put in its place. He suggested that the parties might be funded on a proportional basis relative to their electoral strength, regardless of which side of the debate they were on.

I am glad that Mr Quinn is trying to stimulate debate on the system. I think he is right in certain aspects of his analysis of the reasons behind the high number of spoiled votes, but wrong in the solution he has in mind. He is, of course, not alone in offering this solution. It is one that would be favoured by the larger political parties. But if we were to accept this line, then the principle of equality in the use of public funds established by the McKenna judgment would be lost, even if non-party civic groupings were also funded.

The 1995 divorce referendum is a good example of why equality and not proportionality of funding is vital to the democratic principle behind the McKenna judgment. In that referendum all Dail parties, including my own, were in favour of the proposed amendment. But 49.72 per cent of those who went to the polls voted against it.

Mr Quinn says "people make judgments partly on the basis of the weight of support behind a viewpoint. A 50-50 regime could elevate out of all proportion the respectability of the lunatic fringe". He goes on to say: "Such a fringe has a right to be heard, but no right to have the State promote a quite misleading picture of its credibility."

He is missing the fundamental point that in a referendum one is asking the people to decide between two choices - Yes or No. Why bother to ask if one has decided that there is only one choice the people can make? Although I came from the other side of this debate, I would not regard those who campaigned or voted against divorce as a lunatic fringe. Just because the political establishment was in favour of a Yes vote, that did not give us the right to drown out the voices of those on the other side, and with their own money at that.

The McKenna judgment recognises that in a referendum it is the people who are the ultimate legislators and not the political parties. It recognises that the way in which a referendum is conducted is a democratic issue which transcends the specifics of any particular referendum question.

That there is a problem with the way in which information is assembled and transmitted to the public is not in question. Any improvements to the present system must be consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court's judgment. Sweden, for example, employs a system of public funding of civic organisations in referendums, with equal amounts for both sides. This also occurred in the 1975 referendum on EC membership in Britain.

While we are looking at ways to advance our democratic process as it applies to referendums, I believe that we need simultaneously to address the issue of foreign funding. In Britain, the Neill Committee has recognised the danger to democracy in this, and has recommended that funding from abroad should be banned. It is also banned in Canada. In Ireland's case, this danger is not an abstract issue. American money was employed here to influence the outcome of the 1992 abortion and 1995 divorce referendums. If a referendum was to be held on membership of NATO's Partnership for Peace, or Irish neutrality, should US or EU money be permitted to influence Irish voters?

There is no doubt that the June 11th referendum, despite dealing with an important issue in its own right, was completely overshadowed by the European and local government elections. It may be a bad policy to hold multiple ballots on the same day, especially when they are about such diverse issues as was the case on this occasion. But I am sure that if the political parties had made it their business to inform the people about the reasons for holding this referendum, there would have been far fewer spoiled votes.

It seems strange that the political establishment has waited until the votes were cast before complaining about the system. There seems now to be a concerted effort to undermine the sound democratic principle of equality of public funding contained in the McKenna judgment, and replace it with a system of proportional funding of political parties. This unequal funding of the Yes and No side would suit the parties. It would also take real and direct power away from the Irish people. It is a bridge too far.