The idea that the changes to the Dáil’s standing orders pushed through by the Ceann Comhairle and the Government despite the rowdy objections of the Opposition constitutes a mortal blow to Irish democracy is simply preposterous.
But ensuring speaking rights for Michael Lowry and his pals, while curtailing the time for TDs to question the Taoiseach, is certainly a political stroke – that is, it’s an example of the Government using its power to squeeze out benefits for itself because it can.
Inventing a Dáil platform for Lowry and the lads is part of the agreement between the Independents and Fine Gael/Fianna Fáil that enabled the Government to be formed in January. That agreement is clearly not limited to the published programme for government, prompting the obvious question: what else is in it?
Nothing to see here, the Government says. The programme for government is the programme for government. Yeah, right. You can be sure that every one of the independent TDs has a list of local projects that they intend to see delivered in the course of the next five years and for which they will then claim credit.
Speaking rights for Michael Lowry would not be on my list of issues critical to our democracy
Taoiseach was cock-a-hoop after his meeting with Trump, but a quick reality check followed
‘I think the French and Germans are right to be worried’: Former US national security expert on what’s next in war on Ukraine
Trump’s supporters count themselves as conservatives, but what he’s doing is radical
Do they have a written agreement from Micheál Martin? Maybe not. Do they have a clear expectation based on agreements made in January that their demands will be met? You bet they do. That’s one of the principal reasons why they have backbenchers as well as ministers, giving the Government the numbers it needs for a secure Dáil majority. That’s what this is all about: the protection of a secure majority.
So is it a stroke that should prompt questions about the extent and nature of the unpublished bits of the agreements between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil and the Independents? Absolutely.
But is it – as Opposition leaders have been wailing for weeks now – a threat to our parliamentary democracy? Ah, lads, come off it. To be honest, repeatedly trying to shout down and shut down the national parliament is probably more of a threat.
That this storm in a teacup should transfix Irish politics in a week when the gathering storm clouds of trade wars and shooting wars are ever more unavoidable is further evidence of the ability of our political system to preoccupy itself with trivia.
For if you’re looking for things that actually have the capacity to undermine our parliamentary democracy, then I have a long list for you.
Democracies – and their architecture of checks and balances, designed to ensure that power is not absolute – can crumble in many ways. Look around the world for plenty of examples of elected strongmen undoing the restraints on their power. The United States, long heralded as the world’s greatest democracy, is a laboratory experiment testing the strength of its independent institutions in the face of a potentially authoritarian regime. Viktor Orban is the cuckoo in the European Union’s nest, squashing dissent and assaulting minority rights. Recep Tayyip Erdogan continues his slow strangulation of Turkish democracy.
I’d start by doing anything necessary – anything – to fix the housing crisis
In the EU’s mature democracies, the real danger comes from a loss of faith among electorates that their governments can meet their needs and are answerable to their concerns. The rise of norm-defying populists in European countries is directly related to a sense among many voters that their political elites are remote, cut off from the concerns of ordinary voters. In many cases, this is related to their concerns about immigration. You don’t have to like that to recognise it’s true.
So if I were compiling a list of things that would safeguard the pillars of Irish democracy – the century-long primacy of our elected parliament to which the government is answerable, the principle of executive power being constrained by the courts and scrutinised by a free media, the constitutional guarantees of our individual liberties – well, I wouldn’t start with speaking rights for Michael Lowry.
I’d start by doing anything necessary – anything – to fix the housing crisis. Because if you feel that you’ll never get out of your parents’ box room, that you’ll never own a home of your own in which you can raise a family and live a life, or that you’ll have to leave the country to do all these things – then you’re a lot less likely to feel you have a stake in society. And you’ll care less what happens to that community. Or you’ll be willing to listen to some snake oil salesman about how getting rid of the all the foreigners would guarantee you a home of your own.
And I’d think about climate action. Not just the transition away from fossil fuels – but also the preparations for changes to weather and climate that are already unavoidable. About the reinforcing of the electricity grid and the flood control measures that people will need to protect their homes.
And I’d face up to the economic challenges that are coming down the tracks like an express train – the potential loss of multinational jobs, investment and corporation tax revenues that now presents a clear and present danger to the country and the public finances.
The re-election of a stable, centrist government, bucking the European and international trend, owes perhaps rather more to the corporation tax bonanza that the country has enjoyed for a decade than the political skills of its leaders. Things might look a lot less stable after a few years of unavoidable austerity.
So if I was thinking about the stability of our democracy, I’d be very, very concerned about our economy.
And when all that is sorted out there’ll be plenty of time for a leisurely look at the Dáil standing orders.
