Editorial: Outright rejection in Waterford of vague referendums
Referendum, generic, stock
The results from the family and care referendums – a rather half-hearted attempt to address outdated wording in our Constitution around Article 41 – should act as a wake-up call to Government and non-government parties alike.
It was a resounding No in both referendums – not because the electorate was hell bent on keeping the status quo, but because the alternative was simply not good enough.
In effect, it was a result that places value on our Constitution.
It would be a simplistic view to suggest the No vote means voters are happy with the current Constitutional wording, which the New York Times described as “written in line with the values of the Roman Catholic Church and ratified in 1937, when religion and social conservatism dominated society”.
That wording on family specifically states: “The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law… The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.” It also refers to women in the context of motherhood.
“In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved… The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.” Two aspects in the replacement wording put before the electorate, which particularly grated with voters, were the vague “durable relationships” in the family referendum and “strive” in the care referendum, seen by many as tokenistic.
In a country which has voted in favour of constitutionally protected rights for our citizens in relation to divorce, marriage equality and abortion, it is disingenuous to suggest that this No vote is a conservative backlash. Of course, from some quarters it is, and a low turnout tends to yield a higher percentage of conservative voters. But this No/No vote sends a clear message to Government that when it comes to our Constitution, we, as a democracy, will not stand for replacing one poorly worded Article in the Constitution, with an alternative equally poorly worded Article, with the latter widely criticised as being inadequate in what it purports to support – namely care-givers.
It was a brave decision for countless women, for whom the current wording still rankles. But the replacement was just not good enough.
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has said the issue won’t be addressed again during the current Government. Whether it will be included in the next Programme for Government remains to be seen. Political parties may be hesitant to return to the discussion table on the matter, given the drubbing they have just received. But they might be minded to consider the disenchantment reflected will only be turned about by a more decisive leadership that respects this electorate for holding our Constitution to the highest standards deserving of our democratic nation.
They also need to take a long, hard look at why so many people chose not to exercise their democratic vote – the votes, and therefore views, of the majority of our electorate were not on the table during this count.
