Why TDs should be responsible first to their own consciences

Opinion: Are large numbers of Irish citizens having a Howard Beale moment, prompted by the Irish Water debacle?

The classic satirical film Network features Peter Finch in the role of Howard Beale, a network anchor with declining ratings. He accidentally salvages his career by losing his sanity on live television.

In one famous moment, he stands up during a newscast and declares: “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this any more!” He persuades viewers to go and open their windows and yell it out into their neighbourhoods.

Are large numbers of Irish citizens having a Howard Beale moment, prompted by the Irish Water debacle? Have they quietly endured the massive unfairness of taking the hit for the banks, followed by years of austerity, only to lose it over water charges?

Or is it more complex, a combination of governmental incompetence and hard left opportunism? No matter what the reason, it is clear that the level of disillusionment with conventional politics could scarcely be higher.

READ MORE

This Government came into power on a promise of reform and transparency, but has become almost a parody of everything it was supposed to oppose.

And where is the reform? Sure, there has been tinkering at the edges, but some things remain absolutely unchanged, including the centralisation of power and the incredible rigidity of the whip system.

In February, at The Irish Times debate final, Lucinda Creighton cited a UCD study which found that in the past 30 years, just 54 TDs have voted against their own party.

Over two-thirds of those were consigned to the backbenches for the remainder of their career.

Charles Stewart Parnell may have given the whip system to the world, but even in Westminster it is not imposed with the same savagery as it is here.

Slap on wrist

Losing the whip is not just a slap on the wrist. One TD described it to me as like being thrown from a moving car. In order to make people conform to the whip, bullying is institutionalised within our system.

In contrast, in 1949 Germany enshrined in its Basic Law – the equivalent of our Constitution – the absolute priority of conscience for parliamentarians. Article 38(1) of the Basic Law states: ‘Members of the German Bundestag shall . . . representatives of the whole people, not bound by orders or instructions, and responsible only to their conscience.”

Anyone who proposes even a relaxation of the whip will be told confidently our system would grind to a halt, that parliamentarians would be subjected to ruthless lobbying and that chaos would ensue.

In stark contrast to what happens at the moment, I suppose? No one seems to have noticed that 65 years of conscience being given priority in Germany has not resulted in aimless anarchy.

Rigidity

Ursula Tipp, founder of Tipp McKnight solicitors, is from Germany, and is qualified to practise law in both jurisdictions. She is not affiliated to any particular party or ideology, but when she came here 20 years ago she was struck by the rigidity of our system.

In her opinion real political innovation gets stifled in a rigid whip system. She believes that in Germany, more gets done, not just because you get a broader and more balanced debate, but because intelligent suggestions are more likely to be taken on board, regardless of where they come from.

Peter Mathews is sponsor of a Private Members’ Bill, the 34th Amendment of the Constitution Bill, which proposes to place a section into article 15, which deals with parliamentary democracy.

The amendment would insert a sentence stating that Oireachtas members will be “representatives of the whole people, not bound by orders or instructions, and responsible only to their own consciences”.

If passed, the quality of political debate would be likely to improve immediately. Opposition amendments would have to be seriously considered, because they might actually be voted for, instead of being ritualistically rejected.

Instead of fanatical loyalty being rewarded, the ability to think for oneself would become an asset.

Amending the Constitution might seem like an extreme step, but is it really? Our Constitution is supposed to enshrine our highest values.

At the moment, virtually all power is concentrated in the hands of the Economic Management Council, which consists of three men and a woman, guided by senior civil servants and advisers.

Somewhat ironically, the debate on the Bill is currently scheduled for December 19th, the last day that the Dáil sits before Christmas, and a year to the day since the Opposition walked out in protest at the ramming through of the Irish Water legislation.

A year on, what has changed? It would be a wonderful first step if there were a free and open debate on the proposed Bill, followed by a free vote. Without real reform, the electorate’s disillusionment will only increase. And voters are as mad as hell as it is.