The Government barely lifted a finger to inform the public about the content of the cabinet confidentiality referendum. The result was the low turnout and the high level of spoiled votes. Some Government sources have attempted to suggest that they were restricted from informing people properly by the 1995 McKenna judgment. This is not so.
The 1995 Supreme Court judgment in the McKenna case, brought as an objection to the government's funding of a Yes campaign in the divorce referendum, obliged the Government to give equal funding to both sides of a referendum campaign. Exchequer funds could not be used to fund a one-sided partisan campaign that suited the government of the day, the court concluded.
It was therefore open to the Government to give substantial funding to Yes and No campaigns in the cabinet confidentiality referendum. Instead, the Government funded hardly any campaign at all.
The Government did fund a newspaper advertisement, placed in national, Sunday and provincial papers last week, outlining arguments in favour and against the amendment. It was produced and published under the supervision of the Ad Hoc Commission on Referendum Information, a body established to disseminate information on referendums.
It is safe to say this advertisement was read by a very small fraction of the electorate. It filled a broadsheet page with small, dense type. And in layout, design and attention-grabbing terms it was about as effective as those planning notices placed in the back end of newspapers seeking permission for the retention of a shed.
It was fairly typical of the type of Government notice placed when the obligation to publish the notice may be more important than any imperative to ensure it is read. No political party, or campaign, seeking to get a message across would dream of paying for such an advertisement.
The largest five political parties, all of whom favoured the proposal, did even less. Phone calls to them a fortnight ago asking what form their campaigns would take, and whether they would have any posters or leaflets, were greeted with bemusement. There were to be no party campaigns on the issue.
There was, however, a joint statement from the five party leaders. This was finally produced last Tuesday. There was no press conference or photocall, just a typed, workmanlike statement handed out to reporters. It was dutifully reported in the national media with no great prominence, and that was it.
It was only when evidence emerged suggesting that the proposal might not simply coast through without debate that political leaders stirred themselves.
On Wednesday, October 15th, The Irish Times published the results of an opinion poll on the principle behind the cabinet confidentiality referendum. It showed 72 per cent supported the provision of access to all relevant information on cabinet discussions. Just 20 per cent supported the restricted information proposed in the amendment.
The same day, the former PD chairman, Mr Michael McDowell, came out strongly against the Government proposal. The party's former leader, Mr Des O'Malley, repeated his earlier stated opposition to the amendment.
This elicited separate statements from the Taoiseach, the Progressive Democrats and the leaders of Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left urging a Yes vote. None pointed to any great intrinsic merit in the proposal. The most they could say was a negative: if this isn't carried the Moriarty and planning tribunals may not be able to do their jobs. After issuing their statements, the politicians basically sat back until this week's bland statement of support for the amendment.
Apart from Mr McDowell and Mr O'Malley, most newspapers ran an editorial, each calling for a No vote, and some historians and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties issued statements of opposition. And that was it.
The politicians got away with it, to the extent that their proposal was approved. Of those who voted, 49.9 per cent voted Yes, 44.9 per cent voted No, and 5.2 per cent spoiled their votes. The high level of spoiled votes ensures that the Yes voters do not even constitute a majority of those who voted.
The failure to generate interest in the issue is reflected in the low turnout of 46.4 per cent. The failure to inform people what it was all about is reflected in the 5.2 per cent spoiled votes.
And the failure of the political establishment to convince the electorate is shown in the fact that, although the five main political parties endorsed the proposal, just 23 per cent of the electorate did.