President does more than rubber stamp laws

Now that we know who the candidates are, perhaps it is time to think about what we want from our next President.

The role can be summarised into three areas. First, there is the legal and constitutional aspects of the job as set out in the constitution. Secondly, there is the responsibility of representing us diplomatically on the world stage and socially at local and community events up and down the country. Finally, there is the more symbolic aspect of the President as a figure of unity, bringing the country together.

Among our candidates for the office, some would bring more to one or other of those areas, and some would approach aspects of the three areas differently. The election debate should be about us listening to the candidates, the better for us to weigh in the balance which of those things are most important as we ultimately make our choice.

Let’s consider each of the three areas in turn, starting with the legal and constitutional aspects. This is the ‘bread and butter’ of the job. All our laws must be in alignment with what our constitution says. A key job of the President is to review each new piece of legislation to check that it is indeed constitutional.

Many people conclude – quite wrongly – that the President signing our laws is no more than a rubber stamp. But the purpose was - and is - to act as a check on the government, to make them think twice before proposing laws that might be unconstitutional.

A President needs therefore to understand the legislative process and the way that our laws are made. They must have the wisdom to be able to identify if something might be unconstitutional, and the judgement to know whether it should be referred to the Supreme Court to test it.

That is not an easy call to make because if the Supreme Court found such a law to be constitutional, it can no longer be challenged by a citizen in the courts. Presidents sometimes therefore allow laws they suspect might be unconstitutional to be enacted, preferring that citizens challenge their constitutionality in the courts in the context of real human experience. Even with the Council of State to advise you, you must know what you are about to make a call like that.

You might think this is all abstract blather, but it impacts on the day-to-day life and liberties of every person in the country.

The President formally appoints the Taoiseach and members of the government, and acts as the ceremonial chief of the Defence Forces. The President also has some limited powers for use only in rare circumstances. The best known of these is the right to refuse a request to dissolve the Dáil and call a general election when the request is made by a Taoiseach who in the opinion of the President has lost their majority in the Dáil. Politically what that would mean would be an invitation to the leader of the opposition to try and form a new government without an election - no small matter. It has never been used but it is a real power.

The second aspect is the President’s duty of representing us on the world stage and at events up and down the country. This part of the role is both ceremonial and social. When a Head of State from another country visits us, it is important that our President can do this with courtesy and even a little grace. This is easy enough, truth be told, when it is a visit from a friendly country, but rather more tricky when it is a controversial figure, or a leader from a country where our relations are more complicated. This requires judgment, tact and emotional self-control.

On the social side, a President is expected to show up at events all over the country, and in their own house indeed, and make everyone there feel mighty about themselves and what they do.

The ceremonial and diplomatic work is an essential part of the job. How much of the social side a President does - visiting groups all around the country - is a matter of choice and of energy.

All candidates will say they intend to do loads of this work, but it would be interesting to hear how they intend to balance this part of the job with the bread and butter role as outlined above. How they answer tough questions during the campaign will also tell us much about how they might manage a situation where a visiting political leader says something to them with which they profoundly disagree.

Finally, there is the more symbolic role as a figure of unity, bringing the country together. Until recently, the President of Ireland has tended to avoid commenting on issues of political debate. Fair to say that that has changed quite significantly in this current Presidency. With a new President, the question in the election will be whether people want to see that continue, or whether they would prefer the next President to revert to the previous approach. At the heart of that debate will be a number of points.

Some will argue that the President is entitled to state their views, especially on issues where a large majority of the Irish people are in agreement. Others will say that the President is not elected to address such issues, and does not decide government policy, so an elected leader speaking about issues without the responsibility or power to address them is not a good approach.

Some will say that in this age of cynicism and lack of trust in politicians, they want a figure who will speak openly and thus be a figure they can look up to and trust. Others will say that in this era of populism we should be wary of that, and that our constitution sets out to depersonalise our system of government - with the leaders of government drawing their authority not directly from the people but from Dáil Éireann, which itself draws its authority from the people. It is our way of spreading out the power.

Some will also say they do not want a President who is silent on their fundamental views, engaged in a type of pretence, and others will say that would mean accepting the potential of a future Presidency which will divide rather than unify people. The discussions around that final part of the role are surely crucial for what the Presidency is and could become.

All those questions should be at the heart of our debate over the next month. Whether they will be, given the history of our Presidential elections, is another question entirely.