Here’s four ideas that might improve our politics and public life. There might not be much prospect of them happening, but they are worth thinking about.
Change the electoral system
We don’t have the worst electoral system, but it promotes localism, intraparty competition and short-termism, and incentivises TDs to concentrate on servicing their constituents, rather than thinking about the national interest. A bit of this is not much harm – but when it becomes the defining feature of political behaviour it is most definitely a problem.
Irish politicians have become experts at managing this, which is why it is possible for national politicians to wail about the housing crisis in the Dáil and then object on flimsy grounds to housing developments in their localities. Voters may be happy about this, but they shouldn’t be. A different electoral system – a combination of constituencies and lists, perhaps – might help.
Reduce the number of TDs and pay them better
Unless there is a constitutional amendment to change the rules, the number of TDs is going to keep increasing. That will invariably breed public resentment. Why not reduce the number, pay them better, and give them more responsibility? One of the reasons that politicians are so obsessed with constituency work is that you need so few votes – by international standards – to get elected. Depending on the constituency, you could do it with 7,000. You can do it anywhere with 10,000. It’s actually possible to meet that many people in five years – so that’s what politicians try to do.
READ MORE
That’s not the best way of spending their time. Less focus on constituency work would enable more time for work on policy, on committees and for thinking about how to solve the country’s problems and prepare it for the future.
A while back I spoke to a barrister who became a judge a few years ago. The big difference, said m’lud, was that there was now time to think more deeply. The email doesn’t constantly ping. The phone rings a lot less. You can just sit and think about the law and what the correct decision in any case is. It would be good if our politicians could carve out even a little of that space.
Of course, this requires a mindset change from voters. If they reward politicians who spend all their time on constituency work, then that’s what politicians will do.
Empower ministers
There are strengths to having ordinary politicians head the departments of state. But it means that they are hugely reliant on the specialist advice of their officials and often don’t have any real understanding of the areas for which they are responsible. This is okay in some departments, but not great in others. Specialist knowledge, in any walk of life, is an advantage. People often say doctors make bad minsters for health and that may be true, but experts in health systems – like Stephen Donnelly – can make good ones. Some countries separate the executive from the parliament and there is something to be said for it. But maybe a better way would be empower the ministers we have.
Talk to any politician who has served as a minister and they will all cite difficulties in mobilising the great machine of the State – and its permanent bureaucracy – to achieve the policy aims that have been endorsed by voters and negotiated as part of a programme for government. Allowing ministers to bring in their own team of senior officials – both from within and outside the Civil Service – would mean they are able to get a firmer grip more quickly on delivering policy objectives. This is how it works in the European Commission, where each commissioner can select their own “cabinet” of senior officials. It would also allow ministers to bring in more expertise from the private sector.
Securing the co-operation of the existing Civil Service would still be crucial. But bringing in civil servants as well as outsiders would help with that. So would pre-election consultations between government departments and opposition parties to scope out how their manifestos might be implemented.
Make fiscal rules binding on government
Minister for Finance Simon Harris unveiled the latest medium-term fiscal framework before Christmas. A reasonable question would be: will the Government stick by the spending limits set out in it? And a reasonable answer to this would be: probably not.
The previous government continued to flout its own expenditure rules after the Covid and cost-of-living pressures had passed. The Fiscal Council, among others, was very critical about this, though the politicians – understandably – pleaded that the public simply would not wear the sort of parsimony the economists advocated. There is something in that, too.
This is a recurring dilemma of democratic politics – how to get politicians to do what’s best for the longer term when it might be unpopular in the short term? The old Luxembourg warhorse Jean-Claude Juncker put it succinctly during the financial crisis. “We all know what we have to do,” he said of the choices then facing EU governments. “We just don’t know how to get elected afterwards.” Always beware of politicians who tell you there are easy answers to difficult questions.
One possible way around this on fiscal issues is to make the rules binding through legislation, so that governments would not be able to break the rules without first repealing them by an Act of the Oireachtas.
Before Christmas, the Fiscal Council warned that the Government would save just €1 out of every €7 collected in corporation tax next year. We should probably be doing three times that amount. Of course, because of pressure from voters, politicians find it hard to discipline themselves. This move would make it easier for them. And nothing is more important than maintaining sound public finances. Everything good that a government can do depends on that.
