It is well known that one particular area in which Irish people were far outside international norms—the provision of standard reproductive healthcare—was partially dealt with by means of a landslide referendum result that heroically gifted Irish women only a restricted legal abortion regime, in place of the obvious cruelty of the previous extremely restricted regime. As the referendum campaign rolled onward, it was standard procedure for any ordinary person articulating a pro-choice approach to begin by making clear how personally Opposed to abortion they were, before they could make a sensible case in favour of choice. In any case, despite public disapproval, the people voted to approve access, recognising not only the torture inflicted on Irish women, but also the hypocrisy of permitting abortions as long as the women concerned travelled abroad. This letter is not in fact about abortion, but about a different topic entirely where Irish people display a similar insensitivity, a similar disregard for what happens outside the State, a similar keenness to keep outside international norms, albeit in this case without the bloodshed caused by the Eighth Amendment that led to its repeal a mere 35 years later: the topic of voting rights.

As far as your correspondent is concerned, if one is a citizen of a State, one gets to vote in the elections of that State. Macdara is in fact not overly inclined to democracy as we are familiar with it, that is, as a bauble on the Christmas tree of Capitalism, being more interested in radical forms of participation. If the State is to be run on the principle of democratic input, then why not other key institutions, such as universities, banks, large corporations? And if elections are important, then shouldn’t those who tell lies during elections be punished; shouldn’t those who use their money or access or newspapers to interfere in elections also be punished? It seems important to point out these flaws before getting too far into Electoralism.

One citizen, one vote: what proponents of capitalo-democracy could openly disagree? Irish people, is the answer. 

There are two major groups of citizens who are denied a vote by the Partionist Party: Irish people in Ireland (if they are in the north-east of the country) and Irish people outside of Ireland. Macdara falls into the latter category: let us use him as an example. He is politically engaged, politically informed; he holds a single citizenship; he is willing to travel home to vote, as he has done for important referenda, in which he technically votes illegally. What possible reason is there to deny him the right to vote? Only that he lives outside the country. For the standard Irish voter this is the most powerful argument possible. If confronted with the fact that the ban on Macdara’s political participation lies outside the norms of our peer countries, this standard voter would argue that Ireland is different, due to our history of emigration. So we end up with the argument that the misgoverning of the State, which has driven out astonishing numbers of people, means that the people driven out should not get a say in the governing of the State, and so its misgovernance continues. And as for those in the north-east of the country: they live under Occupation, which means that they should be denied democratic rights in this, their own actual country. This while the Occupation Administration, a standing joke even when it is sitting, does not exist.

We hear a tired set of subsidiary arguments: that people abroad don’t pay tax (so tax them or require tax returns to assess whether they are rich enough to pay in two jurisdictions; let it be noted in passing that the equation of rights with tax payment is a sinister trick by the Right that ignores the fact that everyone pays tax: if you make purchases, you pay VAT and are a tax-payer); that there are tens of millions of Irish Americans (yes but only a tiny number of them are Irish citizens, of which only a smaller proportion would vote), etc.

In recent years (for ten years in fact, since the Constitutional Convention) there has been a weak movement towards allowing some of the Disenfranchised to vote in Presidential elections. Anyone can appreciate the importance of the symbolism of our Head of State, but this idea is being entertained exactly because, in day-to-day terms, the President does not matter. 

There are a host of possible approaches to take in Enfranchising all citizens: expatriates could vote for designated seats, perhaps; the right could be tied to a history of residence within Ireland, which would still create a class of Disenfranchised citizens, almost all of whom however would likely appreciate the logic of their not being allowed to vote; voters could be required to go to an embassy or other location, as a means of weeding out those who would cast a flippant postal vote. But the discussion does not cover these practicalities: it is restricted to a dull set of concerns within the limits of Presidential elections; within the limits in fact of how to make sure that our votes, if ever cast, do not make a difference and cannot lead to change. 

The Pale of old has pushed beyond its boundaries; it now covers 26 counties, and the rest of us remain Beyond the Pale.