Sir, – It’s been a while since I was the minimum age to be the president of Ireland but I’ll be voting Yes on Friday to reduce it to 21. If we’re willing to let our young people join our Army and Defence Forces and potentially die for their country, then surely they are entitled to run to be its president. – Yours, etc,
JOSEPH WOOD,
Douglas,
Cork.
Sir, – As Gemma Hussey (May 16th) has highlighted, it should not be forgotten that there is a second equality referendum question on Friday seeking to revoke an arcane and ageist provision in our Constitution.
The obvious historical case of Michael Collins has been indicated persistently throughout the campaign. Yet would those still intending to vote No also bear in mind that this is a country where a 25-year-old Frank Aiken issued a ceasefire order to essentially end the Civil War; where a 30-year-old Kevin O’Higgins established An Garda Síochána; and where a 34-year-old Ernest Blythe presided over the finances of our then fledgling nation state? Occupying the office of president in the 21st century is a proverbial walk in the park in comparison to those stark precedents.
It is strikingly dubious that a formal restriction applies for the role of head of state where no such barrier exists for the pragmatically more pivotal role of taoiseach. Furthermore, I doubt one would have been amused if such an age limit had correspondingly applied across the Irish Sea in the 1950s.
It should be emphasised that the initial nomination procedure to run for president and the ballot voted upon by the Irish electorate itself are both necessarily rigorous judgment phases for any candidate, regardless of age, to overcome, and therefore the current age parameters as set out should be considered superfluous.
We live in an age where the advent of social media will continue to actively develop the participation of younger people in politics into the near future. I fear that in a context where many students have enthusiastically registered for the first time specifically to vote on Friday, a majority vote to theoretically prevent those aged between 21 and 35 from running for the highest elected office in the land would thus strike a somewhat discordant, emblematic tone. – Yours, etc,
JOHN KENNEDY,
Goatstown,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – Polls show a strong belief that maturity, experience and wisdom are required from a candidate seeking election as our president. The compulsory religious oath in the Constitution surely sits ill with these qualities. Can I enter a plea that when the dust settles on this referendum, that our liberal reformers engage in some joined-up thinking and set about removing this anachronism? – Yours, etc,
DICK SPICER,
Bray, Co Wicklow.
Sir, – What’s wrong with being president at the age of 21? Or rather should I say, having the opportunity to be president at the age of 21? I struggle to think why we should have in our Constitution a restriction on the age level at which one can be president of Ireland when we don’t have at least a similar restriction on being taoiseach. Theoretically, one can be taoiseach at 21 but not be president at 21. So what more special skills does a president need that a taoiseach doesn’t need – other than being older. And if age is to be a defining factor, are we take it that by definition, a taoiseach aged say 25 or under is less knowledgeable or, God forbid, more stupid than a Taoiseach who is in his or her 40s, 50s or 60s? – Yours, etc,
ED McDONALD,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.