Ireland could do with a new constitution

So, the Government is to blame for the fact that the people of the country voted No-No in the referendum. No to the removal of mothers from Dev’s constitution and No to a somewhat nebulous proposal that instead of the mother playing a predominant role of care within the family that this should be left to “members of the family” with a promise of support from the State (the State will strive to support). 

At this point, it is not necessary to delve into the many promises made by successive governments that proved to be just that… promises. Whether we like it or not and whether we admit to it or not, there are few enough families on this little island of ours who have not benefited and thrived because of the mother’s role in the household... a role that, in most cases, extended well beyond the family and into society as a whole. The mothers that I know, housebound or not, have contributed as much, if not more, to the well-being of society, than many of the males who are supposed to have chained them to the kitchen sink.

Perhaps, as a society, we have not recognised that contribution as much as we should. In the absence of such recognition, it was easy to dismiss, as has been the case, in our newly liberal, secular and materialistic society of recent times, the mothers who opted to stay at home to nurture and care for and yes, lay down the law, as occasion demanded, to those within their care.

We have become somewhat intoxicated and self-satisfied with the huge strides we have made in pursuit of the liberal agenda. We have got rid of the influence of the Catholic Church (what about the other churches that have sprung up and are tolerated as an indication of how liberal and liberated we are?). We have adopted feminism and the LGBT agenda with the same enthusiasm as one reserves for the delightful sighting of a genuine rainbow.

Here, I have to admit to an early and immature revulsion of queers. That was probably down to a Catholic education but would also have been a generic part of my DNA. However, I am happy to record that I was cured of my prejudice following a meeting with Senator David Norris in 2011 when he was a presidential candidate. He treated me to lunch in the Dáil restaurant not that that was a contributory factor in my conversion, as I am not that cheaply bought!

No. The man who almost singlehandedly changed the Irish view of LGBT issues proved to be such an intelligent, entertaining, clear-thinking, direct and honest person that it would be a complete fool who would fail to recognise the sincerity of his queerness. It is, in one sense - no disrespect to Michael D - a shame that he did not make it to the Áras. He was the out-and-out favourite until a letter emerged, or probably more correct to say it was planted, that connected the Senator to a plea for leniency for a convicted rapist in Israel. He was not, of course, the only Irish figure to be waylaid by a letter, we have only to think of Parnell and Casement to arouse suspicions about how the Norris letter so conveniently came to light.

But, I digress. To get back to the referendum result. Blame it on the Government and whatever you do, do not give credit to the electorate for having sufficient intelligence to vote down both proposals. The intelligentsia, the bright liberals, the shapers and shakers, the opinion-formers, the trendsetters and the politicians concluded that a liberal and secular society would see sense and leave behind the outdated view of the mother in the home and the carers coming from, well God knows where, to keep society on the straight and narrow.

Without doubt the wording of the two amendments was a cause of concern especially when the legal eagles decided to differ. Former attorney general Michael McDowell took the No side and proved to be an industrious and articulate advocate. There were more and diverse members of the legal profession advocating for a Yes vote and putting forward solid grounds in favour.

Now, imagine if the Yes campaign had won, the fun there would be in the courts as the verdict of the people was parsed and dissected while the lawyers, both for and against, laughed all the way to the bank and poor auld Dev’s constitution was threshed and blackguarded. It goes without saying that the wording of the Constitution is out of date. That’s to be expected, it was written 87 years ago. But if the language of the Constitution is archaic, it is not just the wording of some sections of Article 41 that needs to be corrected, it is the entire Constitution.

The fairly obvious answer then is to introduce a new constitution that brings the language up to date and more fairly reflects the customs, the mores and the outlook of this wonderful new secular and free-wheeling society we have created. Even Dev, I suspect, would be delighted to welcome a new Constitution, rather than have the piecemeal dissection of the document that has been going on since 1937. Indeed, it could be argued that the flawed and much-derided Constitution that he left the country has served us well. There have been 39 referendums seeking to change and improve the Constitution and that’s not a huge degree of interference over quite a long period of time.

But, the time has come to move on and the question then becomes who is to be entrusted with the job. We can rule out the Government as too divisive. Any suggestion that the Government might be involved would drive Boyd Barrett over the edge - and we couldn’t have that. So we have to look elsewhere and the first step on the journey would, of course, be the establishment of a Citizen’s Assembly.

This august body of 100 just and responsible citizens would select their own chairperson (leaving it to the Government to nominate a chairperson is fraught with danger and would only attract the hostility and ire of the Opposition). This leaves us with the problem of the 99 other citizens. Where would they come from? Who would nominate? Who would do the Garda vetting? Who would decide the diversity balance? How many females versus males? How many LGBT people? How many people of colour? What proportion of black versus brown? How many atheists versus god-fearing (do any exist?) Catholics? How many politically correct versus ignoramuses and nerds?

I could go on and on and on but if we can’t get agreement on the composition of the Assembly what hope is there of getting a wording for a new constitution? Perhaps we should look around for a new modern, up-to-date Dev, with or without a John Charles McQuaid as counsellor. Or perhaps we should look to the stars.

I don’t see any political colossus when I look to the East from whence came the Wise Men in the past. We could look to the West, to Connemara where there remains a scion of the creator of the 1937 Constitution who has moved, up to a point, with the times and who considers himself a guardian of the Constitution. In his day, Dev looked into his own heart and decided what was best for the Irish people. At the time, they were not as confused and bewildered as today’s population and even he might have despaired at trying to produce a document that would satisfy the many and diverse appetites of society in 2024.

I’d write it myself… for a modest fee!