Constitutional Convention illustrates that ordinary citizens can play their part in the process after all

Political World with Harry McGee

I have to say I was sceptical about the notion of a citizens’ assembly becoming part of official political discourse in Ireland. The idea is that rather than getting politicians to decide on new political direction, you get a representative group of people drawn from all strands of society – getting the demographics and geographics right, as Bertie Ahern kept on saying.

To me it seemed like an indulgence to political scientists – telling them all their Christmases had come as one. My instinct was there was potential for manipulation, conscious and subconscious.

But I must say I have revised my view somewhat. The Constitutional Convention has, on the whole, been a good idea. I have been at three or four of the sessions, some looking at relatively trivial constitutional change, others grappling with big ideas like Constitutional Change.

Overall, I think it’s been a worthwhile exercise and a really good example of democracy being more embracing and inclusive.

Of course, there are a couple of variations to the Irish model about which people will argue. The first was the fact that it’s not all citizens but that 33 of the 99 ordinary members (chairman Tom Arnold has been neutral) were politicians. In effect, a majority of the politicians have acted as a brake on some more of the radical ideas… though not all.

Having said that, on another level, the mix of politician and citizens worked surprisingly well as they weren’t really two opposing camps but worked together and fed off each other.

In the round-table discussions the citizens were able to rely on the experience and expertise of TDs and Senators (plus a number of Assembly members from the North) to explain how things are done, or should be done, or could be done.

The converse was that the politicians were able to hear first-hand the considered view of ordinary people about what works and what doesn’t work.

The result of the Convention isn’t binding on Government, but I hope it does take its reports seriously. The thing that impressed me most was how seriously the 66 citizens (and their alternates) who took part in the Convention took their roles and responsibilities.

I was there for the very first session where many of them were tentative and nervous and seemed a bit overwhelmed by the experience and all the media attention. But by this weekend, the sixth session, all had long overcome this.

The quality of question and contribution from ordinary members was very impressive. When you hear a guy quoting not just from the 1937 Constitution but also from its 1922 predecessor you know that guy is engaged.

The level of commitment was also evident from the weather. For the first weekend in living memory, the sun shone continuously – yet here were ordinary citizens happy to be holed up in a darkish room for the entire weekend on a voluntary basis.

We’ll briefly touch on the thinking behind such conventions before looking at the format. The citizens are selected by a polling company and come from every corner of the country. They are from cities, from the countryside, rich and poor, men and women, old and young, well educated or with minimal education.

The idea is that this is a mini-population and if given sufficient information and briefing in a balanced manner they will make recommendations that will mirror that of the larger population if there was a referendum (but without the kind of emotion and extremes and shouting of a campaign).

The format is simple. Political academics give briefings on the issue that is under discussion. They will outline the history, describe the pros and cons of the current situation, and then explain all the alternatives that will be available. Usually, two people will also be invited in to vote for and against the proposed change.

For more, read this week’s Connacht Tribune.