“Easy listening”, as music, caters to those who might not even have a fondness for tunes. This is parallel to how the dehydration of a social democracy referendum has made it more palatable for those who don’t necessarily appreciate social democracy as an ideology.
Stating that this legislative proposition is lukewarm would be generous, especially when those advocating for its acceptance discuss it in terms of minor progression. Roderic O’Gorman, the government’s main representative, refers to it as a “prominent movement”. Meanwhile, the women’s council regards it as “progressive”. It might be a petite advancement for the government, but a monumental advancement for the female population is far from their intention.
The notorious slogan encouraging such actions translates to “Well, it’s superior to nothing.”
A glance at Irish politics’ unusual landscape may shed some light on why citizens are presented with such lackluster choices. The current low-energy decision-making style seems to be a result of right-leaning parties being forced to navigate traditionally left-leaning matters, illustrating the referendum on care.
Irish society is now undeniably social democratic. This shift can be attributed to a significant cultural, demographic, social, and economic evolution.
The significant cultural transition involves breaking free from the reign that once directed the state – an ironclad coalition between the Catholic Church and Fianna Fáil. Ireland is undergoing tremendous growth following a prolonged era marred by famine and mass departure. Society has evolved to be more cosmopolitan and better educated. The private sector’s significant expansion necessitates an equivalently profound development in state-provided infrastructure, housing, healthcare, and education.
The current status quo reflects a general agreement on the importance of traditional social democratic policies. People want an active government that ensures housing, promotes equal healthcare and school accessibility, attempts to eradicate poverty, and supports both caretakers and those who require assistance (primarily women).
Yet, the reigns of our political culture seem unenthused by social democracy. It has inadvertently become the fallback ideology for primary political parties. Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, and Sinn Féin identify themselves as centre-right, nationalist-centrist, and nationalist “left populist” respectively. Conversely, parties that tout social democratic ideologies struggle to entice more than a meagre 10% of the electorate.
The prevalent trend in Irish politics may indeed be seen as hesitant progression. Most of our political leaders have evolved to be successful in an ecosystem where traditional socio-economic ideologies offer them a survival edge. However, their continued existence, akin to city-dwelling foxes, now depends on adapting to an entirely changed milieu.
This accounts for the curtailed intensity of the original aims of the care referendum, which now merely resonates with a faint echo of its initial aspirations. It now presents itself as a diluted version of social democracy, submerged in outdated 1930s Catholic social theories.
What did the Irish populace anticipate from this referendum? We had a democratic instrument for gauging the public opinion – a citizens’ assembly. This assembly advocated fervently for a phrasing that requires the government to uphold ‘reasonable measures’ to aid care within individual households and the broader society. The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Gender Equality also unanimously favoured comparable phrasing.
Such a stance exemplified the action of social democratic consensus, acknowledging that care extends beyond domestic affections, encompassing the rights of those in need and societal provisions enabling them to lead dignified and equitable lives as citizens.
The proposed wording wouldn’t impede the government’s prerogative to allocate public resources; the term ‘reasonable measures’ lets the government mould according to their policies and programmes. However, the government undertook inexplicable measures to ensure this social and political unite for progressive change, converting it into affirmation of traditional principles, which state that familial carers support society’s structure rather than the converse.
The proposed statement continues to keep care, and those requiring it, behind the scenes, as pointed out by the Free Legal Advice Centre (Flac). The constitution’s only acknowledgment of individuals with disabilities would be a subtle nod towards them as subjects of familial care, a perspective of which John Charles McQuaid would undoubtedly approve.
If the government’s phrasing were not so unsatisfactory, there would still be sound reasons to vote against it in protest of the process used for its formation. The government never saw fit to justify why it discarded the thoughtful considerations of both citizens and parliament.
O’Gorman has been hiding behind the guise of confidentiality and refusing to provide legal guidance from the Attorney General. While various requests for meeting notes from the Interdepartmental Group to dissect the language used have been denied, the phrasing was also hastily pushed through the Oireachtas, so much so, that a multitude of amendments failed to even see a voting platform.
This leads us to ask: if the change is so forward-thinking, why was it shrouded and hurriedly manoeuvred through the legislative system like a presumed guilty party avoiding media exposure outside the court? This paints a mockery of democratic dialogue and parliamentarian inspection.
The future choices presented to our citizens is either the existing overtly gender-biased language concerning a “woman” and her “domestic life”, or an alternative that subtly implies the same fundamental sentiment, with care being primarily a family concern and thus, essentially tasked to women. This is an example of stubborn politics; open to forward-moving change, provided it doesn’t enforce the grants of dignity to all citizens in a practical sense.
However, unlocking the essence of social democracy isn’t a journey that can be executed with minuscule steps in the right direction – certainly not in a nation dealing with the aftermath of its inabilities, through generation after generation, to build a cohesive welfare system. It’s a stark choice that requires courage and firm resolve. Nevertheless, the Government tempts us to demonstrate our approval through the epitome of social media-esque ‘likes’: with a simple heart emoji symbolising our support for equality.