political systems in Ireland and Britain

The United Kingdom and Ireland have both enjoyed geographic separation from the continent of Europe, enabling both to develop unique political cultures and institutions. Ireland has been even more removed from the fray, having never been part of the Roman Empire, and systematically resistant to the same invasions that affected England throughout much of their respective histories. However, the proximity between Ireland and England—and later the United Kingdom—has caused the two countries to be “intertwined politically, economically, and culturally for over 800 years,” (The Republic and Politics of the Republic of Ireland 5). British hegemony has generally meant that Irish identity has been largely oppositional in nature. Divergent trends have emerged in the political cultures and institutions of the United Kingdom and Ireland, especially with regards to the relatively power of the Church. Ireland’s political structures, institutions, and cultures have been inevitably influenced by the British system, but the Catholic Church has also penetrated the political sphere in Ireland to a great degree. As a result, the Irish political system exhibits some marked peculiarities that differentiate it from its British counterpart and its counterparts in Europe too. The Irish and British systems are generally similar in terms of being modern democracies, but their procedural politics are totally different, their respective political institutions are different, and finally, their political cultures also differ from one another.

By the early 20th century, Ireland had fully adapted most British parliamentary democratic institutions, albeit with important tweaks. One tweak has been the evolution of the Irish constitution. The current Irish Constitution (Bunreacht na hÉireann/The 1937 Constitution of Eire) dates from 1937. In contrast, the United Kingdom has actually never had a singular document it would call a Constitution. Instead of a formal Constitution outlining the systems, branches, forms, functions, and limitations of government, Britain relies on its system of common law, and the traditions that have long been embedded in the society. While the British system seems tenuous, even dangerous, its flexibility and its pragmatism have proven it effective for nearly a thousand years (O’Neil). The British government and its political culture are not bereft of formal documents, either. Tracing its heritage to groundbreaking documents like the Magna Carta of 1215 Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights, the British parliamentary system remains a model of liberal democracy around the world.

Also referred to as the Westminster system, the British form of government had some influence on Irish political culture, procedures, and institutions. The most important procedural differences between the Irish and the British systems include the role of judicial review, the proportional representation-single transferrable vote (PR-STV) system, and the use of the public referendum. Like the United States, Ireland embraces a system of judicial review, whereby the independent judiciary may strike down a law passed by the legislative body. The United Kingdom has no policy or procedure for judicial review. In fact, parliament can effectively pass any law it likes unchallenged. Parliament has a much stronger role in government than it does in Ireland. While the British system seems like it could encourage tyranny and abuses of power, the strong and entrenched political culture builds in safeguards to protect against gross injustices. Until recently, the most notable but ironic safeguard preventing unconstitutional or unjust legislation from being passed would have been the House of Lords (O’Neil). Yet Britain has recently changed its political system to welcome some degree of judicial review. As of 2009, the United Kingdom has a Supreme Court, currently peopled by members of the House of Lords but thereafter via appointment. Its powers are weak, limited, and rarely exercised, unlike the Irish court system. The Irish judiciary’s power, role, and purpose in government is similar to the United States Supreme Court in that it provides a formal check on the power of the legislative and executive branches of government. Both Ireland and the United Kingdom favor a common law method of judicial proceedings, rather than relying on statute-based law.

Structurally, Irish and British governments share some elements in common but with key distinctions. The House of Lords is a relic of the past, its members undemocratically selected, representing the aristocracy or the elite and serving for life. Some members of the House of Lords, the Life Peers, are appointed by the Prime Minister. Others are selected on the basis of their legal expertise, which is why the House of Lords had traditionally served the function of judicial review in the absence of a formal Supreme Court. Since the formation of the British Supreme Court in 2009, though, the judicial review tradition in the House of Lords has been usurped. Finally, a large number of members of the House of Lords were seated based on heredity alone. Ireland has no such tradition, but the Irish senate, the Seanad is the closest comparison. The Seanad is, like the House of Lords, not a democratically elected body. Its members are appointed by what can be considered the elite or even special interest groups. Although heredity does not factor into the Irish Seanad as it does with the House of Lords, Seanad members are not directly elected by voters but are appointed or elected via an electoral college. As with the House of Lords, the Seanad positions are divided between different types or methods of appointment. Some are directly elected by Trinity College graduates, underscoring the elitist elements in Irish society (The Republic and Politics of the Republic of Ireland 28). The majority of Seanad appointments come from specific commercial industries or vocational sectors, which is a tradition completely absent from not just Britain but from most other liberal democracies. The appointment of industry representatives to the Seanad is a holdover from Catholic traditions. Known as a “corporatist system,” the appointment of industry leaders to political positions impacts issues like trade regulations and labor policies (The Republic and Politics of the Republic of Ireland 21). Reflective of Catholic values, the policy is designed to balance the best interests of capitalism with Catholic communitarian values (The Republic and Politics of the Republic of Ireland 21). No Seanad appointments are geographically based, just as no member of the House of Lords is. Unlike members of the House of Lords, Irish senators do not serve for life.

Both the British and the Irish legislative systems (Parliament and the Oireachtas, respectively) are bicameral with uneven power distribution between them. In both cases, the democratically elected house retains a far greater degree of political and authoritative power than the appointed house, which ensures democratic procedures. In the United Kingdom, the House of Commons is the primary legislative body; in Ireland it is the Dáil. Members of the House of Commons are known as Members of Parliament (MPs), and are directly elected from geographic constituencies. Members of the Dáil are called Teachta Dála (TDs) and are also linked to geographic constituencies. The House of Commons and the Dáil both have proportionate representation, but the similarities between the House of Commons and the Dáil end there; the methods of electing MPs and TDs is radically different, and the roles and functions they serve is also different. Ireland has an “exotic form of voting” known as proportional representation-single transfer voting (PR-STV), whereby voters can choose more than one candidate by listing them in order of preference (The Republic and Politics of the Republic of Ireland 81). The PR-STV system is more complicated than the British method of elections is referred to as first-past-the post (FPTP), in which a single candidate will win the entire riding. In Ireland, a President is part of the Oireachtas model, and is also directly elected by the PR-STV method. There is no presidential role in the British Parliament. The Irish President has relatively few powers, and the role of President has oddly been likened to the role of the monarch in the British system in that both perform largely ceremonial functions and duties as opposed to wielding actual power.

Head of state in the United Kingdom is the monarch; Ireland had recognized the British Crown as head of state until 1921, at which point the head of state became the president. Whereas the Head of State in both countries does not play a role in legislation, but mainly functions as a diplomatic symbol, the head of government does wield political power. The head of government in Ireland and the United Kingdom is a Prime Minister, who is the appointed leader of the leading political party. Both the United Kingdom and Ireland have fused legislative and executive branches, which is distinct from the American system with its separate executive branch. Ireland’s prime minister is called the Taoiseach. Both Taoiseach and Prime Minister have considerable political clout, even though Ireland’s Taoiseach and the decisions of the Dáil can be overridden by judicial review. Furthermore, functioning within a proportionately elected Parliament means that the Prime Minister and Taoiseach both need a great deal of negotiation and compromise, in spite of the tradition for strong party loyalty and discipline. In both the House of Commons and the Dáil, minority parties can also have a huge influence in legislative decision-making and can form coalitions in opposition to the ruling party.

Party politics do function differently in Ireland and the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom’s political parties often exhibit special interests or class cleavages, whereas Irish political parties are less ideologically-driven and more subject to platform changes (The Republic and Politics of the Republic of Ireland). Changes to economic policy, and their different relationships with the European Union and international community have influenced political culture and institutions in both countries. Finally, one major difference between the United Kingdom and Ireland has been the role of the Church in politics. Whereas England has long fought to keep Church and State matters separate, Ireland’s Constitution actually outlines formal powers for the Catholic Church.
Although the political system in Ireland borrows heavily from the Westminster model, it can hardly be called derivative. Many of Ireland’s political institutions and procedures are wholly unique and reflect the fusion of Irish religion, language, culture, and values with the need to participate in the global market economy. The procedural politics are totally different in Ireland versus the United Kingdom, especially with regards to the methods of voting and Ireland’s PR-STV method. Irish political institutions have emulated those in England, especially with regards to a fused legislative and executive branch and a higher but weaker house comprised of non-democratically elected officials. Yet Britain’s model is majoritarian, and Ireland’s is not, reflecting the vastly different political cultures in the two neighboring countries. The greatest strength of the Irish system is PR-STV, coupled with the accountability of TDs to their constituents. However, neither model is superior to the other; both exhibit strengths and weaknesses with the lack of judicial review the main weakness of the British system, and the infiltration of the Church in politics the main weakness of the Irish one.




Works Cited

Patrick H. O`Neil - Cases in Comparative Politics
The Republic and Politics of the Republic of Ireland