The decisive outcome of the referendum on Friday illustrates the many shortcomings of the Yes-Yes campaign, particularly those pertaining to the Government. The result is layered with multiple facets of complexity which remain unaccounted for in the tally of votes. Several lessons can be extrapolated from this outcome.
First is the importance of paying heed to the original assertions of the Citizens’ Assemblies. In 2014, proposals on Article 41.2 were offered by the constitutional convention whereas in 2018, the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality of Oireachtas was grappling with the verbiage. Proposing the removal of Article 41.2, replacement with non-biased gender language and advocating for state measures to accommodate household and community care were some of the recommendations put forth by The Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality. The aforementioned points were endorsed by the Joint Committee on Gender Equality of Oireachtas.
Citizens’ Assemblies have proven triumphant in terms of replicating wider public sentiment through their meticulous and democratic approach. In an act of overt arrogance, the government opted for an alternate wording that dismissed the outcome of processes intended to guide them. This oversight was pronounced and cannot be overlooked, leaving the Yes-Yes campaign in a vulnerable position, offering only incremental improvement but falling short of perfection in the face of a discerning voting population.
Secondly, the lack of strategy was conspicuous. When reflecting on the tumultuous predicament of Brexit, we Irish preach our astute methodology for conducting referendums on major issues: constructing a community, devising legislation backed by clear consequences, allowing voters to make informed decisions. None of these were put in motion by the government and moreover, the ideological blueprint for a grassroots methodology was also notably absent, leaving no room for canvassing infrastructure, crucial for winning votes at the doorstep.
This signifies a plunge in the fundamental principles of referendum campaigning. The government succumbed to vanity over strategy, and superficiality triumphing over matter. The campaign’s onset was mired in legal arguments that irreversibly complicated the situation.
Lastly, the necessity for concise and powerful rhetoric was painfully apparent. In the midst of a debate on definitions, the argument for rights was drowned. A bulk of the voters came across the campaign late, greeted by distorted wordings and vague arguments which paved the way for hypotheticals. For any campaign, it is crucial to have potent counterarguments that expose incorrect assertions and fear-based statements.
In the absence of robust counteraction, campaigns risk settling into the least favourable scenario short of scandal: the proposition of “change” is seen as worrisome and maintaining the status quo becomes the mainstream opinion. The last phases of the campaign witnessed the emergence of an array of voices advocating for No votes, regardless of their scattered existence. It’s often observed that heterogeneous, expansive movements achieve victory, whereas narrow ones with no appeal to a variety of impassioned opinions remain isolated and lose strategical advantage.
Unexpected collaborations, like the partnership between Equality Not Care and Aontú politician, Michael O’Dowd, cropped up. Despite Aontú’s right-wing, anti-choice stance, they were brought into the fold. Within the Yes-Yes campaign, there seemed a limited desire to fight fiercely, with concerns about creating discord. The campaign’s tone remained constant from beginning to end, albeit diminishingly so. Its lack of dynamism in messaging led to a feeble appeal for support, leaving The National Women’s Council to shoulder the burden, hamstrung by the Government’s inadequately forward communication and an uninspired campaigning effort.
4. Political disconnect from government
A few folks confirmed their shift from Yes-Yes to Yes-No was cemented after Taoiseach Leo Varadkar’s appearance on The Six O’Clock Show. His subtle assertion that his privileged life is ordinary grated on people, along with his tendency to view matters from a neoliberal standpoint.
Across the campaign, government politicians proved ineffective. An unsurprising observation needs to be made within Fine Gael, that their party’s leader seems more proficient at losing votes, across all categories, than winning them. Despite being dismissed by progressives, feminists, political activists within the LGBTQ+ community, and both the left and centre-left, he was attempting to promote what was projected as a progressive constitutional alteration. This fact seems paradoxical. If one can’t secure votes, then what purpose is one serving?
The win of a referendum could have provided a positive outlook for the Coalition parties for the forthcoming local and European election campaigns. Yet, Fine Gael, in particular, is anticipating defeat in the local elections and now faces this prospect fresh off the back of this loss.
5. The real victors remain ambiguous.
It’s not accurate to assert that Ireland has given a renewed endorsement to McQuaidism; the ballot was indeed subtle. While the Catholic right and extreme right might claim this as a multi-authored win, it does not necessarily reflect the truth. My recent participation in an anti-immigration rally in Dublin, which was heavily infiltrated by far-right provocateurs from marginal extreme-right factions, revealed strong No-No sentiments. Gavin Pepper, a man notorious for activating individuals to congregate in Dublin’s city centre last November when riots broke out, proudly took a selfie with Michael McDowell, acclaimed as ‘the legend himself’. However, there’s no implication that McDowell knew of Pepper’s reputation.
Contrary to assumptions, Yes-Yes voters were not seeking to alienate individuals with disabilities any more than Yes-No voters were suddenly fervent supporters of clergymen. It’s necessary to extend support and solidarity to advocates of disability rights and caregivers. Their arguments were heard and respected by the people. The proponents behind a Yes-No vote never intended to strengthen regressive elements. However, repercussions can diverge from intentions – an unfortunate but potential outcome of this referendum, much to the dismay of numerous electors.
Ultimately, the number of late Yes-No votes was minimal. The opposition to the Care referendum surpassed the Family amendment opposition vote by a mere 6.2 percent. Simplistically deducting that 6.2 percent might suggest that had the Yes-No message resonated, the Family Amendment would have prevailed. But an overwhelming majority of citizens rejected the Yes-No vote, favouring a double No vote instead. It is evident that there was intense conviction behind the No-No vote, indicating a clear turnout motivation that warrants respect.