Rotating ministers…are they mad?

Now it seems the reshuffle might throw up another novelty; that the Green leader could stand down from cabinet and allow Ciarán Cuffe take his place. While this may seem admirable in that no minister gets too comfortable (except Éamon Ryan) it would have to shorten the odds on an election this year.

Ministers usually take a year if not more to get on top of their brief, so changing minister will ensure a period of inactivity in Environment – hardly something the Greens want. And Ryan will be in cabinet with someone who has less experinece of cabinet, making it more difficult to get their way in disputes that make it there. It will also give the impresison that the Greens are obsessed with giving everyone in the party a decent job (except presumably the amusingly erratic Paul Gogarty).

But more significantly, how will the leader of the party manage the party in government if he’s not in cabinet where the decisions are ultimately made? Who will meet with Cowen before cabinet meetings to agree the two parties’ positions? Would Ryan become the leader in government, and then allow Gormley act as a Dan Boyle/ Michael McDowell figure criticising from the sidelines? Cowen and Gormley seem to have a business-like working relationship; would this change if the more prickly Cuffe were in cabinet?

Perhaps this internal crisis is manufactured to make it more likely that the Taoiseach will give in to Green demands for a second junior minister. Cowen is likely to prefer than than having Gormley replaced by Cuffe. But I doubt the Greens are that manipulative.

Rearranging the deckchairs…reshuffles in Ireland

If commentators are right, it’s likely that Brian Cowen will use Willie O’Dea’s resignation/ dismissal to reshuffle the cabinet. The thinking is that a reshuffle at this time will give the government a new impetus for the latter half of this Dáil. We’re supposed to conclude that with people in new posts and some new people, the government can change its focus and renew its energies. In short it’s an attempt to make people think the Taoiseach and the government is changing course. But reshuffles can’t really change that much in Ireland because there simply isn’t the possibility of bringing radically different types of people into government.

Though they excite political anoraks, reshuffles don’t have a happy history (in Ireland or elsewhere). In the UK they happen so regularly that ministers never get long enough in their job to actually make a difference and political observers just use them as a way of gauging power between Big Beasts in the cabinet. The British prime minister Jim Callaghan was right to warn against them. He felt that the threat of the reshuffle was more effective than the reshuffle itself.  Callaghan’s logic was that ministers worked hard with the threat of a reshuffle over them, whereas those expecting promotion stayed loyal in the expectation of preferrment. After a reshuffle, some ministers might get lazy and those not promoted get shirty.

In Ireland, Garret FitzGerald as Taoiseach had a problem. His government was unpopular. Relations between some ministers were tetchy because they kept coming up against each other in cabinet discussions. Some ministers were a bit stale, others were not terribly competent. A reshuffle he reasoned would rid them of the incompetent (or at least move them to places they could do less damage) and revitalise the stale. But he fluffed this attempted reshuffle when he found people wouldn’t move and because of the questionable legality one of his proposed new ministerial jobs. Instead of renewing his government it probably quickened its demise and he further lost authority within it. Even had he planned it better and been more forceful on those unwilling to move it’s not clear it would have made a difference.

The logic of the cabinet is that you get fifteen or so minds looking at a problem. Where a minister proposes something, these fifteen people then subject it to scrutiny. These fifteen people will be the elite of the political system, and should be among the best minds in the country. Different people with different skills, different priorities and different points of view will ensure that any proposal will get a good grilling and only the best ideas will get through. The problem is that in Ireland the Taoiseach has a very limited bunch to choose from for his cabinet – probably more limited than any other parliamentary democracy.  He can only choose from those on his side of the Dáil (there is a possibility of two senators but for various reasons this is impractical and politically risky). After you remove the infirm and insane (the intoxicated can make it through!) this means for cabinet and  junior ministers, Taoisigh only have about two people to choose from for every one job.

While many of these will be bright, some we know are not. And because only those with seats, and usually safe seats get near cabinet, we tend to see Irish cabinets are populated by a remarkably homogenous group. They’re all going to be good at serving the needs of their constituents and want to spend a good deal of time there. They’re all closely concerned with the upcoming election (no bad thing but it might encourage short-term thinking). They’re all going to have spent much of their adult life in and around the Dáil. They’re all going to be quite similar.

So if the logic of cabinet government is that proposals are subjected to scrutiny by fifteen independent minds with different perspectives, in Ireland we get fifteen minds, but just one (or two) perspective(s). This limits the usefulness of the cabinet meeting as a forum to thrash out policy ideas.

A number of taoisigh have publicly or privately expressed their unhappiness with this.  They would prefer to be able to bring people in from industry, academia, the arts or wherever. This is normal, or at least not unusual,  in other countries where being elected to a constituency is not a prerequisite to being in the executive. In fact in some countries, would-be ministers have to resign their seats to get into government. This has the effect of distancing the legislature and the executive and in thus making the parliament more vigorous in its oversight of government. To do this would take a change in the constitution, but if it meant that government and the Oireachtas did their jobs better it would be worthwhile.

Eoin O’Malley

Formal submissions by TCD students on electoral reform

Formal submissions by members of the TCD Junior Sophister Irish Politics class at the formal sitting of the Joint Committee on the Constitution in the TCD Exam Hall- Declan Harmon, David Dehoe, Barra Roantree, Julianne Cox, Eliska Drapalova, Talya Houseman, Kimberley Moran, Ciara Begley, Barry Cahill, Daniel Philbin Bowman and Colm Quinn.

This was the first time in Trinity’s history that a fully constituted Joint Committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas sat in Trinity. 

Barra Roantree

 

Justice Frank Clarke, Prof Ken Benoit, Jim O'Keeffe TD, John Bowman, Minister Noel Dempsey, Senator Ivana Bacik, Seán Ardagh TD

Letter to the Citizens of Dublin

The need for political reform by Henry Grattan

Political reform—changing the voting system?

TCD JS Irish Politics class & TCD Department of Political Science
with The Joint Committee on the Constitution of the Houses of the Oireachtas

Public consultation @ the Public Theatre (Exam Hall) Trinity College Dublin Tuesday, February 2nd @ 7pm. Ticket only event, places limited, please rsvp at tcdirishpols@gmail.com  Directions.

The Department of Political Science will co-host a public consultation on electoral reform with the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. This is the first time in Trinity’s history that a fully constituted Oireachtas Committee will have sat in Trinity. The formal session of this meeting will be on the official report of the Oireachtas.

The first part of the evening will consist of the submissions, presentations and interaction with the twelve cross-party members of the Oireachtas Committee by the students. Only the Irish Politics students will be making a formal submission.

The second part of the evening will be a panel discussion on electoral reform chaired by honorary Trinity fellow Dr. John Bowman, joined by Noel Dempsey, Minister for Transport, Professor Ken Benoit, head of the Department of Political Science, Senator Ivana Bacik, Trinity Fellow, Seán Ardagh, Chair of the Joint Oireachtas Committee, Jim O’Keeffe, Vice Chair of the Joint Oireachtas Committee, The Hon. Mr. Justice Frank Clarke and contributions from the audience.

Senator Bacik’s contribution to the Joint Oireachtas Committee

Minister Dempsey’s contribution to the Joint Oireachtas Committee

Prof Benoit’s contribution to the Joint Oireachtas Committee

You are invited to a reception afterwards hosted by the Department of Political Science in the GMB (Graduate Memorial Building)

The Future EU 2020 Strategy

Posted by Mary C. Murphy & Katy Hayward

The European Commission’s ‘EU 2020’ Strategy is a successor to the current Lisbon Strategy. The Commission Working Document sets out a plan for expanding on the successes of the ten year old Lisbon Agenda. To read the document or an executive summary, please go to: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/eu2020/consultation_en.htm. This document is likely of interest to members of the European Studies Specialist Group of the PSAI. Some core points, and preliminary reflections, are set out below. We warmly welcome your comments and thoughts.

The current global financial crisis is the backdrop against which the Commission’s draft plan is framed. Europe is entering what the Commission terms a period of ‘deep transformation’. The language used in the Document is optimistic. Despite the challenges posed by the current economic climate, this period is presented as enabling the emergence of:

 ‘a new sustainable social market economy, a smarter, greener economy, where … prosperity will come from innovation and from using resources better, and where the key input will be knowledge’. 

What this might mean in practice is unclear, but environmental considerations and reducing pressure on resources are stated priorities to be balanced against energy policies and infrastructural needs.  

The Commission Working Document sets out three key thematic drivers as being the means by which to advance this agenda and to guide the development of EU policy-making:  

1. Creating value by basing growth on knowledge
2. Empowering people in inclusive societies
3. Creating a competitive, connected and greener economy

 We particularly note, with reference to the first theme, the goal of a ‘European Knowledge Area’, harnessing the potential of education and research and underpinned by a ‘world-class knowledge infrastructure’. Lifelong learning is also prioritised in this proposal, with a commitment to improve the accessibility of education to non-typical learners.

 According to the Commission, exiting the current crisis and delivering on the EU 2020 objectives must draw on the strengths of member-state, institutional, policy and global interdependence. This framework provides the means to fully exploit the single market and to use the Stability and Growth Pact as a means to support growth. In particular, the Commission advocates that member-states develop strategies which facilitate investment in sustainable growth. However, many member-states face severe constraints in this regard. Bringing public expenditure under control limits the degree of flexibility available to national governments and diminishes their capacity to invest. Their endeavours in this regard, therefore, would require the active support of stakeholders such as the social partners, civil society and national parliaments.

 Although ambitious in tone and content, the manner of delivering on the agenda proposed in this Document does not appear to signal any substantial shift in the competence or capability of the EU. The 2020 strategy clearly emphasises the role of member-states as being the key drivers of change. The focus is resolutely on national governments. Individual member-states will frame specific programmes tailored to their individual situations. These will be monitored by the European Commission, in the context of the overall EU 2020 strategy. A successful exit from the current financial crisis, therefore, appears to require hard and bold decisions to be made by European governments, under the watchful eye of the European Commission.

 In sum, the EU 2020 strategy is not overtly designed to be a means by which to further develop the nature and character of the European project. The emphasis on national governments reinforces the intergovernmental qualities of the EU. This is, it might be argued, somewhat curious. Surely the events of the last year present an opportunity for the EU and national leaders to at least consider more elaborate and innovative responses. The crisis has been occasioned, in part, by poor institutional and regulatory design. Responding to these failings requires a new, bold, and maybe even daring vision for the future governance of Europe. The EU 2020 Strategy goes some way in this direction by outlining impressive policy plans. Unfortunately, however, the Commission fails to present any clear vision as to how these pressing policy priorities might be delivered in new and creative ways – ways which may lessen the possibility of past mistakes being once again repeated in the future.

 The unprecedented events of the past year have provoked profound challenges. Perhaps now is the time and opportunity for the EU to countenance profound responses.

Gary Murphy’s IT peice on regulation of lobbyists

The article can be read online here.

Ceann Comhairle-response to Eoin O’Malley

It’s the not the government, but the Dáil that elects the Ceann Comhairle. The constitution makes no reference to how the Ceann Comhairle is elected, so if the Dáil wished to change the rules of election, it is free to do so.

Of course, the reality of party discipline means that it is difficult to speak of the government and the Dáil as separate bodies, particularly when the former has majority support.

Let’s suppose for the sake of a ‘stronger’ Dáil, the election of the Ceann Comhairle was by secret ballot. Can we expect FF TDs to vote for a FG candidate instead of their own party nominee (unless advised to do so by their party leader)? Some may highlight the case of John Bercow, the former Conservative MP who was recently elected Speaker in the House of Commons. However, he was backed by Labour MPs because he was perceived to be closer to their party than his own. Indeed, he had accepted an advisory role from Labour and had been rumoured to be on the verge of joining their party. Not only that, but such was his detachment from the Conservatives, very few of the latter are alleged to have voted for him. In other Westminster democracies, such as New Zealand, Canada or Australia, the Speaker is normally from the government party. Party discipline prevails throughout these political systems, so why would we expect it to stop when an important aspect of patronage is being considered, whether by secret ballot or not? For some strange reason, The Irish Times at the weekend cited the example of the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the United States, but he/she is far more of a partisan figure than the Ceann Comhairle, and is de facto leader of his or her party in the house.

In spite of this, let’s suppose it did result in the election of a neutral or non-partisan (is there such a thing?). Why stop there? Why not elect the Taoiseach by secret ballot? After all, he, like the Ceann Comhairle, is elected by Dáil Éireann –not by the people nor any party –but it is a process which again is affected by the realities of party government. If the Taoiseach was elected by secret ballot and if this did result in the election of a more independent figure, he/she might then pick a government that reflected the diversity of interests and talents from across the parties, rather than from within the narrow confines of his/her particular party. Now that would be a real change.

Kenny Commits FG to Abolishing Seanad and Reducing Number of TDs by 20+

Fine Gael have proposed abolishing Seanad. Pat Rabbitte and Dick Roche agree worth looking at on Week in Politics.

http://finegael.org/news/a/1402/article/

http://www.rte.ie/live/index.html

A different type of Ceann Comhairle could have made a difference

Posted by Eoin O’Malley

In the political calculations made last week on the removal of John O’Donoghue and selection of a new Ceann Comhairle, two things seemed to be most important in the Taoiseach’s calculations. One was the FF/ Green majority  – so getting a Fine Gael or Labour TD would have eased the pressure on the government’s tight Dáil arithmetic. The other was Brian Cowen’s position within the Fianna Fáil party – apparently giving just a  plum job to a Blueshirt would have caused him more problems than he could afford.

It’s a pity (and rather stupid) that the Government did not indicate a change in the manner of the Ceann Comhairle’s election. The Greens surely would have wanted to strengthen the power of the Dáil by making the chairman independent of the government. This could have been achieved if Cowen had, instead of nominating and indicating who his party were to vote for, said that the Dáil should have chosen the Ceann Comhairle. He should have suggested that there should be an open nomination process, say with seven TDs required to sign one’s nomination papers. There could have been a debate (or hustings as the UK has it), and a free vote of the TDs by secret ballot to elect their chairman. We might have seen five or six people nominated for this very important job, which is also very well paid. A multi-round election could have seen the weakest eliminated.

The Ceann Comhairle and all aspiring and future holders of that office would know that they owed their position to the House rather than the government. (It would be very difficult for any future government to revert to the old way of doing things.) A CC’s attitude toward government tactics would be to defend the rights Dáil rather than protect the Government. Over time we would see a cultural shift in the operation of Dáil business.

And the political logic would have been appealing. The Greens would have been overjoyed at anything that smacked of reform and democracy (why didn’t they think of it?); Cowen might have got an opposition TD into the chair  (with a secret ballot Cowen could have voted for him); but no blame from his party that he delivered a plum job to a Fine Gaeler. And if he’s going to be spending some time in opposition, he might at least like to have a Dáil chairman who allows the opposition to question the government.