Madam, - Dr Martin Mansergh TD (January 15th) refers to the view (which he opposes) that "representative democracy through parliamentary ratification has no validity compared with direct democracy by referendum". He calls this view a breathtaking assumption.
Nice try, Dr Mansergh. The breathtaking assumption is to think otherwise.
The job of politicians is to get elected. To do this, many keep the policies they stand for obscure, and in order to secure as many votes as possible, they are all things to all men (and women).
We have seen, for example, the divorce referendum of 1995, when the proposal was approved by 100 per cent of the Dáil, and only 50.4 per cent of the electorate. So much for representative democracy.
The purpose of the Irish Constitution is clearer from the Irish title Bunreacht na hÉireann. It is the basic law, decided by the people, under which the State is to be run. In introducing the Constitution in 1937, de Valera made it clear that the people were the masters, and that the then draft Constitution would be considered by "the sovereign people who are above the lawyers and above Government and all others". Raymond Crotty was later to challenge, successfully, in the Supreme Court the erroneous view now held by Dr Mansergh.
Dr Mansergh further says that "constitutionally we may have no choice in the matter". Who is the "we" that have no choice? Is it the politicians, or the people? No doubt Dr Mansergh will want to say "both".
Is it thanks to the robustness of the Irish Constitution that the Irish people do have a choice. Such a choice is not available to the peoples of the 26 other member-states of the EU.
This is a matter for pride, not a matter for explanation or ridicule. Where stands choice now, when it matters? - Yours, etc,
DONAL O'DRISCOLL, Dargle Road, Blackrock, Co Dublin.