Practically all who comment publicly profess a belief in representative parliamentary democracy, especially when challenged by violence domestic or international, or by overbearing special interest, writes Martin Mansergh.
It does not follow that they necessarily have the same respect on an everyday basis for the Oireachtas or its members, still less for the actual ways in which they represent their constituents.
This Platonic attitude to democracy, paradoxically, finds a certain parallel in the position of those whose sworn allegiance is to a metaphysical 32-county republic, while their scorn is reserved for the real existing Republic situated in the 26 Counties.
In few countries are politicians closer to the people than in Ireland. Yet many regard our favourable ratio of politicians to population as a waste of resources. It is, as if, say, a 1:19 pupil-teacher ratio in secondary schools should be let deteriorate to some OECD average to save money. Irish politicians are accessible and listen to their constituents, which is much more difficult where the ratio of elected members to population is larger.
Much of the work is outside the chamber, just as much ministerial work is outside cabinet. The attempt to equate limited sitting days with unlimited workload is a travesty.
The declamatory editorial writer in the Irish Examiner (October 30th) thinks it a huge scandal that senators should be allocated the equivalent of a full assistant, instead of the present half one, and that Dáil deputies should be given two.
Notwithstanding the invaluable contribution of print and broadcast media to democracy, it is in the Dáil where governments are formed and fall, and are ultimately held to account, however imperfectly. Any media campaign or political "revelation" will rarely travel far, unless taken up in the Oireachtas.
A common criticism of our system of government is that the legislature is weak vis-à-vis the executive and the permanent bureaucracy. It is also claimed, sometimes with more than a hint of metropolitan disdain, that Oireachtas members, especially rural ones, devote too much time to representing their constituents, instead of attending to their primary parliamentary task, legislative scrutiny.
The ability of parliamentarians to be effective is partly limited by the back-up services and resources available to them. At the other extreme, in the US Congress, legislators representing large populations need staffs of up to 30. Other parliaments have extensive documentation and briefing services.
The Bundestag in the magnificent restored Reichstag in Berlin shows the value other countries, chastened by historical experience, attach to democratic institutions.
The Deloitte and Touche report of 2002 found that compared with elsewhere the Dáil was under-powered. On foot of this, the Commission of the Houses of the Oireachtas (of which I am a member) was established not only to administer Leinster House independently of the executive, but to carry through recommended reforms, on the basis of a three-year financial envelope.
Those who want an end to hospital trolleys or overcrowded classrooms ask that their representatives, in government and opposition, act collectively to achieve this. If parliamentarians are treated as a largely irrelevant extravagance, their influence and ability to effect change is correspondingly diminished. The Oireachtas is there to help spur on and improve government decisions.
Remuneration today is not only adequate, but good. In terms of headline pay, senators receive a salary within the assistant principal scale, while Dáil deputies are linked to the higher end of the principal officer scale.
There are allowances for specific purposes, such as travel to and from home or constituency, phone, and additional secretarial assistance, and, in the case of deputies, constituency offices. The total for allowance claims is not fully drawn down, and generally ends below the amount included in the estimates.
While there is an argument for consolidating pay and allowances, there is equally a case for specific recognition of types of expense that are likely to be far higher than for the general public. In future, to meet accountability concerns, receiving any enhancement of the main allowance for extra paid assistance will be dependant on deciding to move to a vouched system foregoing the cash allowance to members.
There is not a parliament in the world, where legislators are divorced from their constituents. The Congress in Washington is virtually deserted by members on non-sitting days. Critics complain of pork-barrel politics, where add-on measures to help congressional districts is often the price for passing legislation.
What is constituency work? Is it trying to get empty hospital wards opened, a local school rebuilt or refurbished, and assisting deserving sports clubs and community organisations to obtain government support? Is it listening to the problems of individuals, and offering advice and assistance?
Almost all Oireachtas contributions from backbenchers draw on local knowledge and experience. Is grass-roots politics such a bad thing? Or would we prefer legislators to be ideologues and philosopher-kings, easier with concepts than with people?
Politics is a competitively organised but also co-operative activity concerned with solving problems large, medium and small. A balance is needed between the time devoted to national issues which affect everyone and cross all boundaries, and specific regional, local and individual ones. There is rarely an individual or local problem that is not also a more general one.
Oireachtas members have a quiet pride not only in being public representatives but parliamentarians, independent of any media notice taken of their activities. With abolition of the dual mandate, there is more time to devote to parliamentary work and the mediation of local and regional concerns at national level. Improved back-up facilities are a well-timed initiative from that perspective.
The high turnout in the local elections and this week's American elections show a renewed public appetite for democratic participation. A sharper interest and a consequent need for wider mobilisation is the best method of increasing pressure for results. Confounding conventional wisdom, the Republicans have demonstrated how an incumbent can capitalise on a higher turnout.