President Michael D Higgins touched a nerve with his comments about what he termed a “dangerous drift” in Ireland’s established policy of military neutrality. Something similar happened a little under a year ago, when he termed the housing crisis “a disaster” and “our great, great failure”.
It is hard to argue that the president was wrong on housing. And he has at least an arguable point on neutrality. The Consultative Forum on International Security Policy that kicks off this week is the latest in what seems like a series of steps towards changing the long-standing policy on neutrality. It is also true, however, that neutrality has never been a fixed idea; our understanding of it has changed many times over the past century.
But the question is not whether the president is right. It is whether he should have spoken at all. Higgins has been accused of breaking the convention that the president does not criticise the government of the day. It is hard to characterise his comments as anything other than criticism, even if some of his accusers are self-serving and possibly trying to deflect attention away from the awkward truth that he has highlighted.
There is no argument that during his two terms Higgins has pushed the boundaries of his office. That is not necessarily a bad thing. The country has changed dramatically over the last 30 years and there is a logic that this should be reflected in the role of the presidency. The constitutional boundaries of the role are in any case less clearly defined that some would claim, and nobody can have been surprised by any views Higgins has expressed as president. His most notable achievements in office have been more about tone than substance, and generally his words have been well received. He is always careful not to step beyond the majority sentiment on any given issue.
‘Puppets of Putin’: Dáil suspended amid heated row over junior minister’s comments
Ireland receives just €11.6m in EU defence grants despite contributing many times that amount to fund
Ireland ‘scrutinising’ Russian diplomats’ visa applications amid spying concerns
Varadkar attends ‘Davos for Defence’ for first time to discuss neutrality and push for Gaza ceasefire
But a different approach is needed when it comes to addressing the convention that the president does not comment on Government policy, the flip side of which is that politicians don’t comment on the presidency. Abandoning the convention will have an obvious downside in terms of the way the office is perceived by the public. The consequences of this need to be teased out. The president’s apology to the chair of the forum, Prof Louise Richardson, is a salutary lesson in this regard. It is not a good look for the head of State to walk back a “throwaway remark”.
It is also not clear how much appetite there is on the part of the public for a change in the president’s role. It could be a good thing, with the potential to give the office a new dimension, and perhaps even a new relevance.
What is clear, however, is that change of such consequence should not be brought about in an ad hoc manner by an incumbent who was elected twice on the presumption that he would adhere to the conventions of the role.