Electoral (Amendment)(Political Funding) Bill 2011

Deputy Olivia Mitchell: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute on this welcome Bill, which was promised in the programme for Government. It addresses two important issues, those being, political donations and women’s participation in politics. I welcome the changes regarding donations. They are practical, proportionate and necessary. As a basic premise, we must accept the existence of and necessity for fundraising and donations. In this, we are no different from any other democratic country. All democratic countries grapple with the doubts and questions that inevitably hang over dependence on fundraising to fund political campaigns. Like us, they recognise that there are only two alternatives, the first being that only wealthy candidates could run, as they would not require fundraising of any sort.
The other is, of course, full State funding for candidates in all elections. Neither of these scenarios would meet the approval of the electorate, certainly not at present. It would not be in any way desirable to only have wealthy candidates, those who could afford to buy their way into politics. If we are stuck with fundraising to fund the electoral process, to remove the democratic process from even the possibility of having the taint of the self-interest of donors, we must make it as transparent as we possibly can. Even at that, we are struggling against public opinion, but transparency is the most important element. People the world over, not just in Ireland – although we seem to think it is only in Ireland – are predisposed to suspicion of politicians’ motivations. We must do everything possible not to reinforce this disposition. For that reason, I welcome the Bill’s measures which will increase transparency.
The reductions in the amounts that can be given are welcome and there is no reason for anyone to criticise them. It is the transparency measures, however, that will have the most impact in removing the questions and suspicions that surround fundraising. The new obligation on political parties to submit their accounts to the Standards in Public Office Commission is very much welcome. All political donations over €200 must be included in the annual reports of companies, trade unions, societies and charities. A register of corporate donors will also be established. These transparency measures can only be good for politics and will go some way towards restoring trust and faith in the political process.
Deputy Farrell referred to the upcoming legislation on registering lobbyists, again a welcome proposal. The concept of having a register of lobbyists, however, will be extremely difficult. How does one define a lobbyist? We tend to think of professional paid lobbyists and public relations people. The reality is very different. As a Deputy for many years, I have met individuals, companies and bodies lobbying on their own behalf. It is self-interest that is driving them, not the interests of the body they represent. A paid lobbyist is acting at one remove, while far more dangerous is the individual lobbying on his own behalf. I do not know how that will be provided for in the register. However, it is a welcome development. The more transparency we have and the more information is made available to the public on how decisions are made and influence is exercised the better.
I must confess I am not nearly as happy or convinced of the merits of the other major measures in the Bill, namely, the introduction of quotas for women. There are also quotas for men in the legislation. I understand the motivation behind introducing this measure and that it is based on strongly held convictions of many that this is the way forward for women. Perhaps they are right, but in my gut I feel this is all wrong. It is demeaning to women and ultimately will be counterproductive. Of course, I want to see more women here and at every level of politics. Our level and quality of representation here are the poorer because of the one-sided male perspective brought to almost every single debate. This is not to say the female perspective is better or more right. It simply adds another dimension and prism from which to view the many complex and multidimensional aspects of every single legislative decision made here. A greater contribution by women would mean our legislative decisions would be informed by the wider societal view in so far as possible. Better informed means better formed. This can only happen if the range of societal views have equal value. I am not convinced the views of women who are artificially leveraged into Dáil Éireann can carry the same weight as those of someone who is elected solely on merit.
The actual implementation of the candidate quota will be problematic too. Most countries that have gender quotas have list systems; therefore, the manipulation of the selection process is not as obvious. Given the tensions we already have within parties in multiseat constituencies, can one imagine the better candidate or the one with the most votes being passed over because of this legislation? It is fundamentally undemocratic. We send monitoring teams all over the world to monitor elections in emerging democracies. If there is any manipulation of the vote, we are the first to condemn them, yet here we are legislating for something that is fundamentally undemocratic. There are many issues that make it difficult for women to get here. Some of them are small such as physical size and the sound of one’s voice. When a man speaks in a loud voice, he is regarded as forceful and authoritative. When a woman does so, she is regarded as strident and aggressive. The reason many women are not here is the same they are not at the top in every other profession. The years one is building a career and a profession one is also building and rearing a family. Until we tackle the problem of child care for women and encourage them by providing every support to get involved in politics, we are wasting our time. I support this legislation, but I strongly urge the Minister to introduce a sunset clause into this legislation. It is anathema to democracy to manipulate the vote. Until the artificial prop for women is taken away, we will never know whether it is actually working, encouraging and making it possible for women to come forth.