The first independent audit of the political process in Ireland reveals some interesting attitudes, writes Paula Clancy.
In any assessment of Irish democracy, implementation is key. It is what we do that matters and how we do it.
Enabling is central to effectiveness. Information, time and resources are crucial to the quality of performance in any sphere. How does Irish democracy rate on these fronts? An accurate answer demands an assessment of how democracy in Ireland is enabled.
Tasc, the independent think tank, has just completed the first comprehensive audit of democracy in Ireland, Power to the People? The audit draws on an internationally developed methodology designed by the inter-governmental body Idea, based in Sweden. It comprises 70 areas of investigation ranging from governmental accountability, the independence of the courts, the media and popular participation. The process allows for a differentiated judgement about each issue as well as pointing up common themes.
We are secure in our sense of living in a democratic country and on the whole we have a robust level of confidence in our democratic institutions. While some of this confidence has been shaken by revelations from tribunals, public satisfaction with the political system is going slightly upwards, with a widespread sense that the political process is working better than before. Public opinion surveys show high levels of confidence in the gardaí, although much less so in the handling of complaints again them.
Recent decades have seen unprecedented reform of the legislative and administrative framework governing openness and accountability of politicians and public officials. We have put in place a substantive number of different measures to combat corruption and to promote integrity in public life.
But there is a significant difference between introducing a piece of legislation, international treaty or code of practice, and ensuring its implementation or observance.
Increased regulation in recent years has not necessarily resulted in increased control of abuses of power and enforcement has arguably been weak. Consider, for example, the lack of whistle-blower legislation. Similarly, even though there has been considerable reform of the key institutions of government and the public service, ranging from parliamentary committees to freedom of information legislation, the Oireachtas is still judged to be one of the weakest parliaments in Europe. Governments can and do refuse to accept responsibility for actions and activities that are constitutionally and legally under their control.
One measure of how seriously we treat the observance of the rules, and of how equally they are applied to all citizens is the degree to which we are willing to be open and transparent. The State subjects itself to monitoring committees, but is the mere establishment of these monitoring systems enough if there is not the will to make their work meaningful? The issue is implementation. Here of course we move into the domain of judgement but the evidence more than justifies the question. How does Irish democracy rate in terms of information provision, and the allocation of time and other resources to this end?
Two issues arise: the first concerns the collection and availability of the information needed to form reliable assessments of the current situation and to identify where and in what way reform is needed. Because of the absence of accurate, or indeed any, information, an analysis of aspects of State activity is difficult, if not impossible. Clarity on these issues is essential to effective policy interventions.
A second and related problem is that adequate time and resources are needed to allow either the specific bodies or the citizenry to come to an informed judgement. An example here is criticism from the Irish Human Rights Commission concerning inadequate time allocated to consider the proposed Criminal Justice Bill 2007. Equally questions have been raised about the level of resources made available by the State to statutory independent offices. It is perhaps a measure of how far we have come that we can turn to this level of interrogation of our democratic processes. But this is no luxury. In a world dominated by self-congratulatory spin, extra efforts must be made to assure the quality of information. The same is true of the allocation of time and other resources. With the publication of the Tasc report, the agenda must move on. The shift is to a differentiated interrogation of democracy in Ireland. Let's keep it there.
Paula Clancy is Director of Tasc, Ireland's Think Tank for Action on Social Change. Power to the People Assessing Democracy in Ireland was published yesterday.