President with dignity and vision should fit the bill

INSIDE POLITICS: THE EXIT of David Norris from the presidential election campaign has raised the question of what attributes a president should have, given the constitutional limits on the office.

While the role has evolved over the past 20 years, there are two essential qualities in a president. The first is the ability to do her or his duty with dignity and avoid embarrassing the country or creating a constitutional crisis.

The second is that a president should be able to inspire the people with a vision of what is best about Ireland and represent us well on the international stage.

Until Mary Robinson was elected in 1990 the emphasis was on the defensive aspect of the role and an experienced politician close to retirement age was regarded as ideal. The late John Kelly, a politician and constitutional lawyer, dismissed the notion that a president had to be an expert on constitutional law, or anything else for that matter. He remarked that the only qualities required in a president were the ability to hold a knife and fork properly and the temperament necessary to avoid causing insult.

The image of the presidency has moved on since then thanks to the way Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese have behaved in office. Nonetheless, the basic requirement of knowing how to behave within the constraints of the Constitution remain an essential aspect of the job.

The one occasion when a president resigned after a disagreement with the government of the day showed the damage that could be inflicted by a clash between the two institutions. Back in 1976 President Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh resigned at a time when the foundations of democracy were under attack. The episode tarnished the country’s image and was potentially destabilising for the State.

It happened after the shocking murder by the Provisional IRA of the British ambassador to Ireland, Christopher Ewart Biggs, on a quiet road in south county Dublin. The Fine Gael-Labour government brought in emergency legislation that allowed for seven-day detention but Ó Dálaigh, a former chief justice who was an agreed candidate for the presidency after the death of Erskine Childers in 1974, insisted on referring it to the Supreme Court.

He took this action even though he was warned at a meeting of the Council of State by the then president of the High Court, Thomas Finlay, that the Bill was constitutional. In due course the Supreme Court proved Finlay right and approved the legislation. Minister for defence Paddy Donegan then described the president as “a thundering disgrace”.

Most of the focus then and since has been on the unprecedented insult to the president that led to his resignation but the episode reflected badly on all concerned. In recent years Ó Dálaigh’s private papers, which have become available in the UCD archive, show that some time before he resigned he had already written draft resignation notes, one of them in protest at a decision of the Supreme Court to approve the Bill.

The shock of Ó Dálaigh’s resignation prompted the political parties to come together and agree on a successor who could be relied on to carry out his duties without histrionics. The country’s then EU commissioner, Paddy Hillery, a former senior cabinet minister, was chosen even though he had no desire to leave active politics for the office.

Hillery was effectively forced to spend 14 years in Áras an Uachtaráin because he could be relied on by all sides to do his duty fairly and impartially. In 1982 that involved him in resisting pressure from his former cabinet colleague Charles Haughey, who wanted him to refuse a dissolution of the Dáil to Garret FitzGerald.

Later in his presidency Hillery had to suppress his own instincts and refuse an invitation to the Remembrance Day service in St Patrick’s Cathedral because Haughey as taoiseach wouldn’t allow him to go. It fell to Mary Robinson to make the gesture of reconciliation that Hillery was prevented from performing.

Hillery’s achievements as a president were undervalued partly because of his unassuming personality but mainly because his task was to restore stability to the office rather than expanding its role.

Robinson embarked on her campaign for the presidency with the expressed purpose of giving the office a new role and a new level of public recognition. She won the election in November 1990 because she managed to convince the public, especially women, that it was time for a new kind of president; one who would reach out to the marginalised groups and represent the country in a different way.

While the controversy surrounding Brian Lenihan undoubtedly helped Robinson to win, the fact that she was already a real contender showed that she had already changed the way people viewed the presidency.

Mary McAleese put her own stamp on the office over the past 14 years and became a hugely popular president who was able to speak for all the people. The visit of Queen Elizabeth was the icing on the cake for the McAleese presidency but her reputation was secure long before that event.

While our two successful female presidents managed to develop the role and the image of the office, it should not be forgotten that both had political experience. Robinson was a long-time senator and a Labour Party Dáil candidate while McAleese stood for the Dáil for Fianna Fáil and was that party’s candidate for president in 1997.

There are currently four candidates in the field to succeed McAleese. Two of them are experienced politicians while the other two come from outside the political world. There could well be another candidate or two before nominations close in early October.

The recent Irish Timesopinion poll showed that selecting the person who will represent Ireland well is by far the most important thing in the eyes of the voters. The candidate who can make the most convincing case for being able to fulfil the traditional role of the president, while offering a vision that people can identify with, should fit that bill.