The proposed constitutional amendments regarding family and care were evidently heading towards a defeat as the ballot boxes across the nation began opening on Saturday morning. Despite the support from three government parties, most of the Opposition, Sinn Féin, and numerous well-known campaign organisations, much of the populace remained unengaged due to a campaign that struggled to hold their attention.
The question remains: where was the mistake made?
Many considered the process a hastily conducted one. Although the officials spent months labouring over the proposed referendum texts behind closed doors, the more public discussions in the Dáil and Seanad were felt to be rushed.
Dublin voters voice their opinions on care and family referendum mattering on impartial sources. The parliamentary guillotine was utilised to curtail proposal debates, and pre-legislative scrutiny by the Oireachtas was forfeited to expedite the procedures.
Some campaigners observed that the government was overly fixated on scheduling the vote to coincide with International Women’s Day. They felt that the ‘Yes’ votes would have allowed ministers to take pleasure in the widespread approval of the women of Ireland. Rather, the electorate felt overwhelmed by complex, contrasting information delivered through a brief campaign, leading many to disengage. In the run-up to Friday’s vote, the polls revealed a rise in undecided voters, a trend generally perceived as troubling when the finish line is near.
In the ensuing analysis, questions will arise concerning who in the government felt it prudent to organise the vote on International Women’s Day and why the Coalition was in such haste.
A ‘No’ vote appeared as a strong force delivering two blows to the government.
Some subjects of concern felt that the proposals did not push the envelope enough. Opposition politicians had early on voiced their support tinged with reluctance, leading to an early setback for the care proposals. Many campaigners pushing for a ‘Yes’ verdict felt like the proposals should have focused on the broader community care, rather than confining it to home care.
During the discussion in the Dáil regarding the proposed suggestions, Bríd Smith of People Before Profit expressed her lacklustical attitude. She believed the Government had neglected their responsibilities by aligning the notion of a woman’s atraditional role with the care issue, a move she argued was hugely detrimental to the overall project. These proposals were difficult for activist groups to accept, but were seen as progress nonetheless.
This lack of enthusiasm extended across the political board. Privileged conversations revealed many Government officials sighing at the mention of the referendums – it seemed the majority agreed with the sentiment of them having been there, done that. The last four weeks saw most Coalition members remaining low-key, with nonchalance seemingly present in the opposition as well. On the day of elections, a post by Mary Lou McDonald, the Sinn Féin leader on Instagram underscored the importance of expressing your opinion.
Nary was this a passionate call for last-minute support.
Not feeling excluded, are any women?
Securing the support of the National Women’s Council of Ireland was crucial for the Government’s campaign. However, divisions amongst feminist organisations prominently featured in the backdrop. The council’s objective is an Ireland where equal rights amongst women is a norm and not a single woman feels marginalised. But, notably, many disabled men and women felt overlooked by the referendum debate.
A Government figure, who wished to remain anonymous and had recently been drumming up support, noted that the points presented by Senator Tom Clonan had made quite a significant impact on the public. He suggested the proposed article 42b promoted an able-bodied perspective suggesting that disabled individuals were reliant on family for care, thereby excluding them from the rights to an independent, liberated community life. His viewpoints struck a chord with many bolstering the No campaign’s profile in the debates.
A young woman, who had been active in recent referendums, initially planned to vote Yes-Yes. However, in her words: “Ultimately, I found it hard to remove something that I felt benefitted me as a woman but disregarded the rights, symbolic or otherwise, of others.”
Under significant scrutiny, politicians of various parties have grappled with a contentious issue. Halfway into the campaign, Social Democrats’ leader Holly Cairns addressed the Dáil, stating that the Social Democrats chose to endorse two constitutional amendments as they were the lesser of two evils – the alternative being to retain sexist language in the Constitution. Even though the new language represents an improvement, Cairns admitted it could have been further enhanced. The decision has been met with disagreement and discontent, and Cairns expressed understanding and openness to hear out the aggrieved parties.
In contrast to past referendums, where high-ranking government officials actively engaged in disputes with the opposition, this campaign lacked such engagement, illustrated by the early discussions on polygamy and throuples becoming fodder for Dáil laughter.
Further complicating matters, the opposition promoted a series of potential negative outcomes if the family referendum were to pass. The cited possibilities ranged from unnerving immigration effects, a highly sensitive issue in many areas, to potential tax implications for farmers and more.
Nonetheless, the government was privy to advice from the Attorney General, clarifying that immigration would likely remain unaffected and polygamy would not be classified under “durable relationships.” In addition, the Attorney General indicated that the amendment on caring would indeed lay the burden of familial care support on the State. The governing Coalition parties did not share this advice or even a summary, leading to a pre-vote leak on The Ditch website. The leaked documents hinted at possible legal ambiguity in interpreting the terms “strive” and “durable relationships.”
This leak bolstered the appeal of the ‘Unsure? Vote No’ stance. Influential figures like Senator Michael McDowell, a former attorney general, and Aontú leader Peadar Tóibín played major roles in propagating the idea that unforeseen results could ensue, a viewpoint that resonated with many.
Perhaps Taoiseach Leo Varadkar didn’t anticipate that his appearance on Virgin Media’s Six O’Clock Show in early March would stir up controversy, but it definitely did.
A statement went widespread on the internet: “My life, as well as the lives of many others I’m sure, has been shaped by my parents. They nurtured me and when their old age arrives, I’ll ensure their needs are taken care of. Should anything befall my sisters, God forbid, I would step in to provide for my nieces and nephews, ensuring their housing and education. I firmly believe this isn’t the State’s duty, but a responsibility that lies within the family. Nonetheless, the State should still offer support to families, and this is what the new clause of the Constitution aims to establish.”
Online critics accused him of being aloof, interpreting his statement as the Government dodging its duties. Just after the quoted portion ended, he continued: “However, this doesn’t limit us from extending additional aid to those with disabilities. Many individuals I know with disabilities strive for independence and don’t wish to rely solely on their family. Nothing in this revision hinders us from facilitating their independence or funding personal assistants and such services.”
Leader of Fine Gael claimed his words were distorted on the internet, labelling it as typical of social media. His comments undoubtedly made waves, thanks to their selective distribution that didn’t fully convey his intended meaning. It portrays the changing environment in which today’s politicians function—a setting where brief snippets catering to short attention spans often spark controversy.
Stay updated by listening to our Inside Politics Podcast for the most recent discussions and evaluations, and by signing up for push alerts to get the finest news, analysis and commentary directly on your phone. You can also follow The Irish Times on WhatsApp to never miss an update.