The Government may find the consequences of the dual referendums shocking, yet the outcome should not be startling. Attempts to push the process quickly, lack of a comprehensible justification, obscure propositions and a shallow campaign contributed to an inevitably catastrophic outcome. The majority of the blame undoubtedly rests on the Government’s shoulders. It’s widely agreed that the Constitution’s sexist language – which is primarily focused on the domestic roles of women – needs to be reformed. Recognition for caregivers and an expanded definition of family that includes non-marital units should also be implemented.
Regrettably, the linguistic selections by the Government did not gain traction with a significant voter base. A grave oversight was the Government’s failure to allot sufficient time for review of the proposed language modifications, resulting from a rushed legislative process through the Oireachtas this year. This challenge arose from the Government’s tardiness in suggesting revised wording last year, coupled with a keenness to hold the vote on International Women’s Day; errors that could’ve been preempted.
With the development of the debate, the Government started losing favour. Sections of the disability community and advocates felt the care-related provisions were inadequate and even insulting; the ambiguity surrounding the definition of a durable relationship remained unresolved. The Government missed an opportunity to better inform voters by not releasing draft legislation on the durable legislation matter.
Their conservative stance caused them to be trapped between ensuring that the proposed changes were considerable yet legally inconsequential. The Government failed to navigate a balanced approach, misjudging public sentiment and improperly building a common consensus. Their unfolding campaign was typically marked by murky explanations and a weak argumentative stance.
Their poor performance was further compounded by the visible absence of influential ministers from the discourse. The opposition and supportive NGOs also did a poor job at persuading voters. The aftermath is now a categorical blocking by voters, and the dated language concerning women and family units will endure in the Constitution. The matter is likely to be approached with trepidation by any future government.
The outcome has dealt a considerable political blow to the current Government, causing extreme humiliation. Its enduring political impact, however, is uncertain. There’s been a history of governments losing referendums and still maintaining political stability. The emphasis of the electorate may shift away from this issue by the time the upcoming election rolls around. Nevertheless, if the lack of discernment that resulted in a weak campaign based on vague proposals continues, the Coalition’s future may not be promising.