SENATOR DAVID Norris had no other credible option yesterday when he announced an end to his campaign to secure a nomination for the presidential election in October. The decision followed resignations by members of his election team and the withdrawal of pledged support by a number of political sponsors. To contest the election he would have required support from four county councils or from 20 members of the Oireachtas. Both of those routes were firmly shut following controversy over letters he had written to the Israeli authorities in 1997 seeking mitigation on behalf of a former partner who had been convicted of the statutory rape of a 15-year-old boy.
This was the second occasion on which controversy had damaged Mr Norris’s presidential aspirations. The first involved the content of a magazine interview given in 2002, concerning paedophilia and incest in classical Greece. That caused him to admit he had been “foolish” to make the comments and to disown them as not reflecting his views on sexual morality today. The latest controversy arose from use of his position in the Seanad to make representations on behalf of a former lover who had been found guilty of having sex with a minor.
It has been argued that the action by Mr Norris in making the representations was no different from the behaviour of other prominent politicians at the time. That is certainly the case. But it doesn’t make it right. It was, however, also distinguished by personal motives as well as by political considerations. That amounted to an abuse of office. The Senator’s record as a champion for the rights of women and children is beyond reproach, as is his commitment as an advocate for human rights. Although his behaviour may have been motivated by his desire to help someone he “loved dearly”, he now accepts it was wrong. In the circumstances, withdrawing from the nomination process was the only realistic option. His announcement was marked by dignity but his judgment was once again shown up as being flawed.
His withdrawal should not be the end of the matter. Before being forced to retire, it was doubtful whether he would attract sufficient support to qualify as a contender. As the most popular candidate in the race, according to opinion polls, that is unacceptable. The Government should ask the proposed constitutional convention to review nomination requirements for the position, rather than confine their assessment to cutting the presidential term from seven to five years.
The other issue that arises is the political practice of making representations to the courts on behalf of constituents. Public confidence in politicians and in the judiciary could only be enhanced if such petitions were banned. An even more compelling case exists for ending political appeals to ministers for justice seeking reductions in fines and penalties already imposed by the courts. These issues are of considerable public importance. If Mr Norris’s derailed attempt to secure a nomination results in these political flaws being addressed and repaired, he will have done democracy some service.