Whipped

The party whip is a functional but troublesome feature of Irish political life. Its value for stable party politics, and consequently governments, is very apparent but its service to the citizen it seeks to s democractically represent is not.

There is a long history of its use, its winners (and indeed its many loosers) but it has been raised at the termination of the current Dáil sitting (June 2010) when a series of biils are being passed through that are producing diverse views and wide debate where the benefit of 'free' vote for democracy is clearly productive but where pursuing a party voting strategy is prevailing. The ban on Stag Hunting (Animal Welfare) the, at the time of posting, upcoming dog breeding legislation and the forthcoming Civil Partnership bill are all of wider moral consequences that a healthy parliament would seek to enshrine the feelings of the electorate in legislation and where such a seat of democratic means should oppose to the bulwarking of those intent on remaining in control of the house.

The result of this pattern has seen politics being removed from the public view of the chamber to the internal sound-proofed, air-conditioned meeting rooms containing anonymous individuals making secret decisions. The table of some of this legislation is clearly in step with the maintenence of a coalition government whose minor members, The Green Party, are looking to grab some of their inputs into the programme for government and where the big boys are looking to keep them sweet and, consequently, on-side.

Examples of the 'free vote' is visible in many democratic states. Notably in Article 38.1 of the German Constitution that respects the need for democracy to reign by expecting those elected to parliament to 'be representative of the whole people, not bound by order or instructions, and responsible only to their conscience' - how refreshing!!

multiculturalism

Ireland have not only set a legal precedence this week but it has reinforced it with a second ruling less than 24 hours later. Both involved the health authorities insistence on providing blood transfusion for Jevoah's Witnesses who view the procedure as being contradicatory to their religious beliefs. The medical proffession were steadfast in their duty under the consititution to uphold the sanctity of human life.

Senator Ivana Bacik recently raised the issue of the integration of ethnicity into Irish society. Her assertion that our health service is 'bound up with religious affiliation' can now be rebutted. However, in winning this battle, have we conceeded her war on the belief that a multicultural model can lead to the oppression of minority members?

In the same weekend, Tom McGurk, in the pages of The Sunday Business Post, called for a re-evaluation of Enoch Powell's 'River of Blood' speech to deal with the immigration issue. While being quick to distance himself from how the views were presented, McGurk did quote various polls indicating that Powell's impending ‘‘immigration crisis’’ is upon us.

Both arguments are framed in the context of a view put forward by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who caused controversy in Britain when he suggested that some recognition of Islamic Sharia law should be accommodated in the British legal system. His proposal was universally condemned by other church leaders, government and opposition MPs united in the disbelief that any system of religious law could co-exist with British law.

As viable as this dual-state could seem, Bacik's and McGurk's search for the boundary line between one man's rights and another man's beliefs has been drawn; the constitution takes precedence and where this viewpoint appears dated, then a deate should be held on a issue by issue basis.