In the drama of the presidential election and with reports of political resignations in the air, the other electoral exercise of last Thursday has scarcely impinged on public consciousness. But it is difficult to be other than apprehensive after the electorate's endorsement of the constitutional amendment on Cabinet confidentiality. Nor is there any comfort to be drawn from the facts that the turnout was low, the majority in favour was wafer-thin and that the number of spoiled votes was actually greater than the margin in favour of the proposal. The amendment has been approved by the people and will pass into law.
The amendment will place a veil over future Cabinet discussions other than in limited instances where disclosure is ordered by a High Court or a tribunal of inquiry. Historians and academics have already expressed their concern that sources for studies will be cut off. But there is the potential for much more serious fall-out. Any future crisis discussed at Cabinet - for example, if a Minister is discovered to be engaged in serious wrong-doing - will be veiled. If a majority of the Cabinet, for example, was engaged in discussing a course of action which was of dubious legality or which was gravely improper, any dissenting Minister would be prohibited from revealing the fact.
Impossible to envisage? Fanciful beyond the realms of experience? One only has to recall the stilldisputed circumstances in 1970 in which Cabinet Ministers were charged with attempting to import firearms illegally . What of decisions taken to tap telephones illegally? And what of the many Cabinet discussions on controversial issues other than those inquired into by Mr Justice Hamilton in the beef tribunal and more recently by Mr Justice McCracken? It would be a foolish polity which would write a blank cheque on the basis that corruption or dishonesty will always be faced down by countervailing qualities of propriety and integrity around the Cabinet table.
Yet that is precisely what the electorate has done. There was no information campaign of any significance and all the main opposition parties combined in agreement with the Government to support the proposal. (It was, after all, initially drafted under the aegis of the Bruton administration). MEP Ms Patricia McKenna, on behalf of the Green Party, expressed it well when she described the Government as declining to put out information on the two sides of the proposal since it is prohibited (under the McKenna judgment) from commiting resources to one side. One or two significant voices of dissent were raised among mainstream politicians - notably those of Mr Michael McDowell and Mr Des O'Malley and they are owed honourable mention for their stand. Most of the media too have a case to answer. Little print space and less air-time was accorded to the issue. The amendment has derived from the impossible situation which flowed from the Supreme Court judgment handed down during the Hamilton tribunal. It was argued that it may be necessary to enable Mr Justice Moriarty to complete work in the payments to politicians inquiry. Yet even as the proposal was being advanced, political leaders including the Taoiseach and the Labour leader, Mr Spring, acknowledged that it is inherently unsatisfactory. Mr Ahern has indicated that he will consider whether it may be possible to move a further amendment, perhaps in the new year when a second referendum might be held on the issue. It can only be hoped that Mr Ahern will be as good as his word. It takes no great leap of the imagination to visualise the Dail being told, next April or May, that try as he may, the Attorney General is unable to find a way to improve upon the wording endorsed last week. If we are left with this formulation for the future, one day the cititizenry of this State may pay a heavy price for it.