Now now, Paul.
How can you overlook the fact that 10 percent of the seats of the Senate are elected by graduates of two universities only?
While I have not checked, I suspect that this is a real outlier (oddity) in parliamentary democracies. It is no surprise that academics have been consistently been elected from these panels eg. Mary Robinson, David Norris, Ivanna Bacik, Sean Barrett, Joe Lee, Brendan Ryan and others whom I cannot recall.

Other academics have stood in general elections, David Thornley, Garret FitzGerald, Joan Burton, Richard Bruton, Michael D. Higgins

I do see see why academics should have any more appropriate role in our way of governing ourselves than any other citizen – in the public policy sphere.

Yes, I do expect academics to engage in public discourse – bringing their insights to the attention of a wider public. IMO. this is the origin of this web-forum and many others eg.
http://www.irisheconomy.ie/
http://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/
http://www.humanrights.ie/

Personally, I have no objection to academics advocating particular options in which they believe (for whatever reason), just as others with specialised knowledge and interests do.
Just because they seem well informed and articulate does not mean that they are wiser than any of the rest of us. We can and do challenge them – hopefully not in an “ad hominem” way. Just like the rest of us, some enjoy such discussion, debate and the search of a better understanding of whatever is the subject of the day. Others clearly do not.

What I find sad in Ireland is that the political and governing elites do not like (putting it mildly) options being teased out in public.

Issues are referred to inter-departmental committees, but are not referred to Oireachtas committees until decisions have been more or less been made eg. a bill is presented or perhaps the heads of a bill. We rarely get to see what options are being considered, the arguments supporting each option and cost-effectiveness. One contemporary example is the way the new property tax is being designed.

Secrecy rules, including secrecy on those who are consulted. Such secrecy hides incompetence, bad management just as much as it facilitates corruption.

As Swift noted “Providence never intended to make the management of public affairs a mystery to be comprehended by a few persons of sublime genius”.

Secrecy in government is in stark contrast to the way in which academics advance human knowledge, insight and understanding, through the processes of experimentation (including thought experiments), publication, peer-review and making these discussions publicly available.

Wow! once again you’ve crafted a mini-essay. I can only hope that some sentient beings still check out this site and get to read this. I’m (almost) in entire agreement with what you say.

My only quibble is that you neglect to note that the parliamentary system in Ireland does not provide an appropriate role for academics with a knowledge and competence in the public policy sphere. Yes, they may be ‘hired’ by the government-machine to perfrom some role or some study or other, but that results in them being conflicted, compromised and constrained – and totally beholden to the government machine. And all the others who aspire to perform these roles or to conduct these studies are probably even more conflicted, compromised and constrained lest they damage their chances of preferment.

We have a parliamentary system whose committees cannot make a finding of fact in most instances – and therefore cannot impose any effective scrutiny or restraint on government or the government machine. And even if they were to do so and the government were displeased it would simply ignore it or overrule it by whipping the lobby-fodder appropriately. And even if its committees could make findings of fact the Oireachtas doesn’t have the resources or powers to commission the relevant academic expertise. Which is exactly the way governments like it.

As a result, any academics with even a smidgin of public spiritedness are compelled to rely on academic publications, op-eds in the ‘serious’ papers and blogs of this nature – but they have to be very.very careful lest they uspet the ‘powers-that-be’.

It’s little wonder that Ireland is in the mess it’s in. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, but I continue to be surprised that the handful of public-spirited academics we have are not campaigning collectively for reform of the parliamentary committee system in a way that would allow their knowledge and competence to be deployed effectively in the public interest.

When you have your snout in the trough the only time you’ll lift your head is to pay homage to the person filling it or to shed some crocodile tears about those who are being deprived..

The tentacles of the state reach everywhere (even much of “civil society”/voluntary sector/NGOs were sucked into the official tent and compromised to a degree during Bertie’s tenure with grants/funding). And Ireland is a really small place (even more so, I guess, within the circles of academia). And, to focus on political science in particular, there probably couldn’t be a more politically charged discipline! It’s very obviously a topic close to politicians’ hearts. A political scientist may be watching/observing/studying them (Dian Fosey or David Attenborough style ) but, by God, the politicians are keeping an interested eye on them also. I suspect academia is a pretty nice and privileged place to be in general in Ireland, but I’d guess many aspects of the constraints/tradeoffs of the polsci academic career environment are not enviable. I wouldn’t tend to be that hard on them!

I think, in general, systems and culture here seem ideally (by intent or by accident) calibrated to suck life out of any dissent (despite protestations that we’ve learned the lessons of Nyberg on group-think). Thinking further about the David Deutsche/FPTP point, there might well be something to that. There’s definitely a lot of bluntness to that electoral system. Another angle to it might be that the shackles/constraints of having just two major catch-all parties are probably so tight that a certain amount of dissent just has to be allowed within their ranks (e.g. rebellions/free votes on Europe and social policy issues within both major UK parties). In PR such minority factions would probably organize themselves in their own distinct (perhaps small) parties (and hence their views get representation within parliament). There’s a certain degree of bluntness even within most PR systems (a voter can only pin his support to a single party mast), voter party support is mutually exclusive.

Our form of PR-STV is about as far from blunt as an electoral system could be with its extremely fine-grained expressiveness of voters’ preferences. That probably has a strong centralizing/moderating tendency (the desire to be inoffensive). That might be great characteristic in a riven/divided society. But in a homogenous small conservative society like Ireland? And with a grudgingly small amount of proportionality (average constituency size is only about 4 I think), the core vote of small parties just doesn’t suffice. They need friendly transfers. Not only does this enforce the trend to blandness and centrality, but usually the smaller party becomes the mudguard of the larger. Once friendly transfers dry up in the next election, the core vote no longer is enough to get representation, the larger party survives but the smaller party is devastated.

The limited proportionality and presence of independents ensures that most views have some Dáil representation. There might be substantial minorities on Europe or social policy issues in the major parties. However, because some tiny fringe party or a number of independents can articulate this view, then there’s less pressure on such TDs to break ranks and express private personal dissent.

And leading back to the central topic of this blog post: referendums and regulation, the history of referendum regulation in Ireland seems to me to be symptomatic of this general lack of tolerance of dissent. Lisbon 1 didn’t go the way it was supposed to. Hence, the referendum commission was neutered (it could no longer list arguments for and against). So a rational and independent arbiter between various arguments on both sides was eliminated (obviously the general populace couldn’t be trusted with both sides of the argument). So referendum commissions were confined to giving information and seemed to be formed closer and closer to the referendum day (let’s not give them too much time to get organized). But the Coughlan judgment still required equal airtime for both sides. So the “wrong sorts” of people, “fringe elements”, undesirable sorts were getting airtime (and, shock horror, possibly with electoral benefits). Definitely couldn’t be having that! But I suppose that’s fairly inevitable given our oppressive party/whip/electoral system (in FPTP they might break ranks, in proper PR they might have their own parties, in our system they mostly just keep silent). Overturning McKenna and related judgments (and perhaps moving to a more party-proportionate funding) would certainly sanitize the debates (a bit paradoxical that the objective of less regulation would be a greater exclusion of dissent from the more fringe/chaotic/marginal viewpoints). But, I was heartened by the (seeminly unanimous if McCrystal is correct) Supreme Court judgment, which will further entrench the particular legal philosophical approach to referendums taken by our courts over the past few decades (and which is IMO particularly necessary given the nature of Irish politics). Ironic that this occured leading up to an as quintessentially a “mother’s love and apple pie” referendum as it could possibly be (and seemingly with no chance of being lost).

There’s no doubt our approach to referendums needs to be improved (properly empowering referendum commissions and restoring their role to rationally and objectively enumerate arguments on both sides should be the very first step). But, thankfully, all this will have to remain within the overarching framework of McKenna and related judgments.

Many thanks for the kind words. The problem (and Ireland is not unique in this respect – it is common across all the advanced economies with established democracies) is that those academics with knowledge and competence and who have secured some ‘public standing’ – particularly in the areas of economics and political science (the ‘flavour of the month’ disciplines) – use the taking of umbrage at any preceived lack of respect or deference (or ‘politeness’) as a tool to suppress critiques of the status quo – a status quo in which they are comfortably ensconced and have every incentive not to critique in a manner that might provoke the profound changes required. They have the skills to convey the impression of forecfully critiquing the status quo, but the reality is that they are indulging in academic parlour games and charades.

But, you’re right. The fight goes on – elsewhere.

I agree with you. With that aim, I have made an effort to present some means by which diversity and independence from the executive by proposing measures which give us, citizens from which the power of the state derives, means to exercise such independence
eg. “the Mutual education of the democratic process – a case for citzens initiative and direct democracy”
http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2012/10/15/shadow-constitutional-convention-17-o-brolcain-on-direct-democracy/#more-16451
which gave rise to some discussion here
http://politicalreform.ie/2012/10/17/swiss-style-direct-democracy/

eg. Freedom of Information – so that we can find out what the executive is doing and form our own view, independently of what the executive cares to present to us – here
http://politicalreform.ie/2011/09/09/open-letter-to-tds-and-senators/
and – here
http://politicalreform.ie/2010/06/21/freedom-of-information-and-corruption/
and here
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0710/1224319720550.html

Just as we learn from one another both formally and informally, I do think we can learn from how others govern themselves. We have been doing so from the foundation of the state in many ways eg.
the county management system was introduced here as a means of minimising corruption in local government and was inspired by US practice;
on joining the EU, we got rid of the ban on women resigning from the civil service on marriage.

I suspect you do realise that our first Constitution (of the Free State) did provide for citizens’ initiative.

I continue to believe we can learn from how others govern themselves. It is clear that our own way of doing so has let us down, repeatedly and badly. If it had not failed, we would not need the financial support of the EU-ECB-IMF programme.

“Is there evidence that the level of direct versus indirect participation by citizens in executive decisions is of greater importance in effective governance than electoral demographics or the prevailing national culture?”

Frankly, I am not sure what exactly you mean by this, nor what kind of evidence you would regard as convincing or even conclusive.
“Executive decisions” may not always be the aim of a direct initiative proposed by citizens compared with a general law under which executive decisions are taken.

As an example, in a referendum on 23 Sept last, the Swiss supported a measure put forward by the Federal Government (as a counter-proposal to a similar measure proposed by citizens) on the musical education of young people. While I do not know the detail, implementing that particular measure will require lots of executive decisions

I am not sufficiently well-versed in the literature of political science to know what studies, if any, have been done which compare
1) the relative importance of “electoral demographics” (in itself, it seems a very broad topic)
with
2) the prevailing “national culture” – how one measures this in a statistically valid and reliable way strikes me as an imprecise art form -
using factor analysis. regressions etc.

Anyway, today’s Supreme court judgment merely confirms a series of past judgments (the full judgment next month will be interesting to read). It would seem from the Venice Commission report that our legal setup isn’t anything all that exceptional in terms of European legal norms. Was expecting such a result from our court, but one never knows. Despite its non-transparent and rather haphazard appointments process, the Supreme Court still seems to be one of the few institutions of state capable of showing some real independence. It’s hard to see, at this stage, a future court clipping its own wings and rowing back on all this. Probably only a constitutional amendment could change the current setup (and really what’s the likelihood the people would actually vote to overturn this?).

But I must admit I do value this blog as a useful source of information and debate on Irish political reform (there are not too many such places!). I suppose it’s exactly the type of thing conscientious Irish polsci academics should be doing anyway (particularly given current circumstances). Credit to them, but still all just part of being a good academic (and it isn’t as if that isn’t properly remunerated in the overall scheme of things). It’s a pity your comments were considered too robust. As a somewhat semi-public figure, you’ve stuck your neck out in highlighting some real problems where economics and governance intersect in this country. Have probably made yourself into a marked man by the powers-that-be (can’t imagine they’ll appoint you to an energy policy quango anytime soon! ). You obviously care (it isn’t as if you’re storing up any future rewards for playing a gadfly role).

Positivity is all well-and-good but I often find myself unwilling to cheer small baby steps. When economic times eventually improve there’ll inevitably be some retrenchment and clawing back of any current reform improvements. Grudgingly slow and limited incrementalism might well in the longer scheme of things ultimately amount to the sum total of nothing. We’ve seen past “reform” responses to embarrassing public incidents, e.g. the creation of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board (JAAB) in response to the Harry Whelan affair, which ultimately have proved to be so wooly and vague as to essentially amount to close to zilch/nada. Positivity where it’s due certainly has it’s place but I tend to be fairly reluctant to throw on any green jersey. Maybe that makes me a negative person!

I’m mostly just interested in the ideas surrounding political reform. I’m no public figure, so neither much risk nor reward is involved (just find the area interesting in its own right). My basic desire is that all the various political reform angles be thrashed out in detail in this and other forums. Who knows, perhaps our TDs will eventually get their act together, or perhaps some reform party or movement may get started and run for office. Can’t say I’m hugely hopeful. The day will eventually come when there’s a sufficient change in political culture amongst the electorate and/or politicians and sufficient desire for good governance that this will come about, but it might well take yet another 30 year cycle of boom and mismanagement for the right circumstances to finally come together. But it’s not inconceivable this will happen in the short to medium term (as austerity bites more and more). A useful service places like this (or humanrights.ie with its “shadow constitutional convention”) could provide is that at least all the various routes, angles, options and possible avenues of reform be fully explored and thrashed out by our various experts.

Far away fields often seem greener. It’s easy to get carried away regarding the quality of governance in other countries. However, in practically all categories I’ve considered, the general caliber of how we’ve been governed in this country over the past few decades seems fairly abysmal. Recently got around to reading Conor McCabe’s “Sins of the Father” (see http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/review-sins-of-the-father-%E2%80%93-conor-mccabe-irish-history-press-2011/ for a review)
Am no economist, but a lot of McCabe’s arguments and narrative seemed pretty convincing and also depressing. Its subject matter is firmly planted in the intersection between economics and politics (coming from quite a left-wing viewpoint).

The only major policy success of the Irish state seems to have been as a multinational base for the US (a confluence of EU membership, upsides of the Lynch splurge in the 70s going into education for the masses, and corporate tax policy). Though that’s perhaps all starting to wear a bit thin now (and perhaps masked plenty of other underlying problems). The whole overlap between politics and economics seems an important area. Seems a real pity you have been sidelined off of irisheconomy.ie and seem to be leaving here now also. I’ve no doubt you’ll keep fighting the good fight though!

Perhaps we agree more than we agree – on some basic points.
“In my view, constitutions should be minimalist; they should establish and govern the basic institutions and procedures of a democratic polity; and they should establish and protect the rights and responsibities of citizens.”

As written – not much to disagree with.

We disagree on the actual form of parliamentary democracy.
Surely our being “in receivership” (as some Government Ministers like to remind us), shows that our present constitutional specification of Government being in and of the Dáil has reached its limits.

If we want to change the result, we have to change the approach.

Having started to pay attention to the structures of government during the 1980s crisis, I came to believe then – and still do – that to enhance our way of governing ourselves, we have to completely separate the Dáil ( representative assembly/legislature) from the Rialtas (executive/government) so that both can be improved.

Our present structure is like a see-saw, with the elected representative function at one end and the Minister/executive role at the other. Any rise in the effectiveness of one implies a drop in the other. A new structure is needed which would cut the tie so that each can be improved without weakening the other equally necessary activity.

Montesquieu, a pre-revolutionary French political commentator pointed out “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, there can be no liberty”.

Our constitution can be enhanced as a framework for a free government that limits, restrains and allows for the exercise of political power, which we as citizens of a Republic own.

We need to go beyond that a simple separation of powers to design, implement and use a series of checks and balances to limit the scope for excess by the powerful, whether they be public or private, elected or appointed in order to ;
• ensure competence and moderation in government
and
• overcome inertia at government level, both national and local

In this effort, we need to ensure that our way of governing ourselves has both
• the means to be successful for the common good with increased democratic accountability
and
• the capacity and of adapting to the changes that constantly descend upon it.

Given the failure of our governing to ensure a stable economic framework over the last 40 years, we citizens need to ensure that the state’s decision making-processes are structured and disciplined . We need to copper fasten new ways of governing ourselves to avoid the kind of muddling through, inertia lack of foresight , and reversal that marks previous efforts at reform.