The country is ill-served by the lack of science or business expertise among its politicians
THE DEMOCRATIC institutions of the Republic remain remarkably unaltered since the foundation of the State. This may be seen as an achievement, and in ways it is, but it provokes the question whether these are still the best choice for the governance of Ireland.
The STV (single transferable vote) electoral system, favoured in the English-speaking world when adopted by the first Dáil, is still retained, even though abandoned across the globe by every other democracy with the exception of Malta. Almost all the states of post-second World War Europe, and the new democracies of central Europe, have abandoned 19th-century parliamentary structures in favour of systems more fitting to these times. None has opted for the Irish system.
The intense crisis that now engulfs us highlights the deficiencies of Ireland’s system of governance. Talent is the glaring deficit. The 15 people who currently serve as Government Ministers are well-intentioned, hard-working people but generally undistinguished in terms of expertise, experience or achievement. Not one of the many Irish people who have proven themselves internationally serves in government.
Our antiquated electoral system results in the election of the large bulk of members of the Irish parliament from just some 1,000 people: members of local authorities. While a local authority may be a source of popular people, it is an unlikely source of the experienced leadership and world-class talent necessary to guide an advanced democracy.
There is some management experience at the Cabinet table: Éamon Ó Cuív managed a Gaeltacht co-operative; Eamon Ryan has a commerce degree and ran a bicycle shop and tour business; and John Gormley owned a language school. But more than half the members were in education (six teachers, one guidance counsellor, one lecturer), one is a social worker and three are lawyers.
In so far as I can establish, only one member of the Government is scientifically literate: Éamon Ó Cuív has a bachelor’s degree in science. I can find no evidence that a Fianna Fáil Minister has a business qualification. A company with such an unimpressive board of directors would find it difficult to attract investment or be taken seriously.
An analysis of Opposition front benches suggests that a change of government would not much alter the talent and experience deficit. Similar large numbers of primary and secondary teachers would dominate.
A “Run-a-Sweetshop Rating” gives a simple indicator of Government and frontbench management talent. Ten points are awarded for managing an organisation, even a sweet shop, and five points for being self employed. The Government gets 30 per cent, the new Fine Gael front bench is slightly ahead at 38 per cent (unchanged from the previous one), and Labour comes last with 21 per cent.
Labour takes the lead at 28 per cent in a “Scientific Literacy Rating”; Fine Gael at 15 per cent and the Government at 7 per cent. These ratings compare rather starkly with that for the Standing Committee of the Chinese Politburo, which scores 100 per cent: each of its nine members is scientifically literate.
None of the new democracies of central Europe chose to adopt the Irish electoral system. All decided to introduce some form of list system, which provides a means by which national movers and shakers can be brought into government. Typically half the seats in parliament are reserved for those who are elected, as in our case, from local constituencies and the other half from lists of well-known national figures.
As a result, when the prime minister goes to appoint ministers a wide range of proven talent and experience can be drawn upon. The list system reduces clientism and ministers can take difficult decisions with less concern about re-election. They are released from the distraction and burden of constituency work and can give undivided attention to the ministerial job and the challenge of government.
In recent years a talent deficit has developed within the Civil Service. Many of the gifted school-leavers who once competed for places in the Civil Service opted instead for the more lucrative opportunities in the private sector. This reduced influx of talent has been aggravated by private-sector head-hunting that vacuumed some of the most capable and smartest from the middle and senior ranks of the service.
Unlike the 1980s, we now have a Civil Service seriously weakened by loss of talent and leadership and disoriented by the decentralisation gambit. As a result Ministers are less likely to receive the firm guidance, astute advice and, when appropriate, the direct opposition of their civil servants.
The repeated statements made by Charlie McCreevy and his colleagues that the government, and not the civil servants, ran the country, showed either a lack of knowledge of the legal position or a disregard for it. The responsibility for safeguarding public funds and for the efficient administration of a government department lies not with the minister but with its secretary general, the head of the department.
Provision is made for facing down a minister who exceeds his or her legal authority and informing the comptroller and auditor general. In recent years, since the Haughey era, few civil servants appear to have had the courage or confidence to confront a wayward minister.
Many of Charlie McCreevy’s “If I have it, I’ll spend it” initiatives could have been frustrated by a confident Civil Service. In particular the decentralisation policy, which was blatantly party-political and not in the interest of the efficient administration of government departments and deserved to have been stopped in its tracks.
Decentralisation has proven highly inefficient and a cause of distraction to the leadership of government departments. Many secretaries general have been faced with the disintegration of their teams and the loss of corporate memory. I understand that one found himself with some 40 replacement staff. The arrivals lacked the expertise to do the job and many were of an age when they had little interest in finding out.
The boards of public bodies also suffer a talent deficit. It is estimated that 2,300 people serve on the boards of the 188 national non-commercial State agencies. Many of these are ministerial appointees. Quality varies considerably depending on the minister. In some cases real effort is exerted to select capable and knowledgeable people.
However, it has been my experience that the best are more likely to be bypassed in favour of party faithful. Such people are often organisational liabilities. The solution is to limit ministerial choice to lists of competent people drawn up by an independent commission.
The current national crisis represents an opportunity for radical reform of governance and public administration in Ireland. Ireland needs it: the quality of governance cannot exceed the quality of those who govern.
Dr Edward Walsh is founding president of the University of Limerick