Rónán Mullen (Independent)

Tréaslaím le mo chomhghleacaithe ó Shinn Féin as an rún seo a chur faoinár mbráid inniu. Tá sé tábhachtach plé a dhéanamh ar na ceisteanna tábhachtacha seo ag an bpointe seo. I congratulate my colleagues from the Sinn Féin Party for putting this matter forward for discussion. I had some conversations with the party yesterday and, the more I read it, the more I feel it is not what we require. In saying that, I am not particularly impressed with the amendments from the Government or the Fianna Fáil Party. I will vote to leave matters as they are but perhaps we can have further discussion, taking into account other matters that have been ignored.

I want to focus on two points in the Sinn Féin motion, the first of which is that Seanad Éireann "affirms the democratic values of citizenship and equality that define our nation and people". At first blush, it seems reasonable but on further analysis it is a narrow view of what defines us. The preamble to our Constitution refers to we, the people of Éire, "seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations".

Without prudence, justice and charity, notions such as citizenship and equality are empty and indeterminate values. They can as easily justify Leninism as they can various forms of democracy, by which I mean liberal democracy, social democracy and Christian democracy. Our Constitution, with its invocation of the dignity of the individual, has proven to be an enormously progressive and positive influence on many other constitutions and other human rights manifestoes. Human equality as a notion makes no rational sense unless one accepts the dignity of each and every human being. Human dignity and the inalienable and imprescriptable natural rights acknowledged by our Constitution owe their ultimate source in our Constitution, as the preamble testifies, to our divine origin and end. We need to find some way going forward, to use that awful phrase, to think about how we can maintain those deep values in the changed society that is Ireland, without losing the profound basis for the values our Constitution recognises and guarantees.

The proposal that Seanad Éireann "calls for a thorough review and reform of the nomination process for presidential elections" has naturally attracted much comment here today. What is the reason for this measure? Is it simply about good PR or unprincipled populism or is there a genuine political reason for wanting to reform the nomination process? As a matter of principle, there must be some such process in place; otherwise, an unlimited number of persons may run for the office without any test as to their suitability to run. Clearly, no one wishes to see the spectacle of hundreds of names on the ballot paper but neither should we be unconcerned about the calibre of the persons eligible or deemed to be eligible to run for the highest, most esteemed and most symbolic office in the land. All presidential candidates should meet some prior criteria. This is precisely what our present constitutional arrangement prescribes. Implicit in the most common argument against our current procedures, the argument that we should let the people decide, is the view that there should be no prior criteria met before a person can run for the highest office. I do not think it is possible to justify such an assumption rationally.

I am open to the possibility that, accepting there must be a nominating process to determine the suitability of prospective candidates, our current arrangement is not the optimal solution but this case must be made with argument and evidence. I find it difficult to accept that democratically elected Members of the Oireachtas should have no role in such a process. Assuming they are not to have a role in the future, how would we determine suitability? Should it be done by payment? That is outrageous. Should we use opinion polls? The Sunday Independent and other campaigning media outlets would love that but transitory, and often poorly conducted, opinion polling is a poor basis upon which to form a key political decisions. What about a petition of 10,000 signatures? Aside from it being clearly open to widespread abuse, there is some plausibility to the proposal but only as an aspect of the process and not as the sum total of the process. If all that was required was that a prospective candidate gained, say, 10,000 signatures, that would open up the possibility of bribery rather than an assessment of genuine suitability.

However, if the petition system was to be combined with the current system, it might work. Without 10,000 signatures, a prospective candidate would be required to obtain 20 Oireachtas signatures or four council nominations, but perhaps with 10,000 signatures, a prospective candidate would be required to obtain a lower number of nominations, perhaps from 15 Oireachtas Members or two councils. There is a similar system in Slovakia, where a prospective candidate requires either the signatures of 15 MPs or a certain amount of signatures from a petitions committee.

This is all speculative. I maintain that the current provision which requires candidates to obtain either Oireachtas signatures or council majorities is reasonable. Both of these groups are democratically elected, after all, and despite their flaws they represent their constituencies and communities. Even if one thinks there is a certain Oireachtas elitism or that Members are out of touch with ordinary citizens, it is harder to lay such a criticism at the door of councillors, whose primary work involves them in the community for the common good.

We have all seen how things have evolved so far and received many e-mails and messages, mainly polite, encouraging us to let the people decide. However, we should be slow to abandon the role the Constitution has entrusted to us, which is to make a judgment on whether we would like or be happy to see a particular person as President. Unless we can say one or the other, we should be slow to nominate a candidate.

We are now experimenting with a new kind of presidential election, with seven people on the ballot paper. It is showing itself to be not entirely unproblematic. Not least in terms of the media coverage, the number of people involved has its unsatisfactory dimension as well as its apparent inclusiveness. It may well be that we will consider in the future that two or three is the right number of candidates. Alternatively, we may have to consider a run-off system in which we have a first-round election followed by a run-off between the top two candidates. I thank the Cathaoirleach for his indulgence.