Alan O’Reilly is a political activist based in London.
The Irish presidency is traditionally seen as a ceremonial role whose role is above day to day politics. However, a recent letter from president Higgins to the newly installed president of Iran has set off a storm of criticism.
Last month, following the election of Masoud Pezeshkian as President of Iran, Michael Higgins wrote to him to congratulate him and offer best wishes. This letter sparked criticism from a range of sources, including a former foreign minister, calling it deeply inappropriate and risking the perception that he is offering support to the Iranian regime.
It should be noted that the letter was prepared based on material sent to his office from the Department of Foreign Affairs, and previous presidents have sent similar letters. The Government itself did not express a comment either way.
But for a number of politicians this was another example of where the president has delved into political areas generally considered to be the preserve of the government of the day.
Before going further it’s worth knowing a little about the Irish presidency. The President is head of state, but most of their powers are exercised on the ‘advice’ of the government. The role is relatively limited; for example, the President cannot even leave the country without the express approval of the cabinet.
The presidency’s key power is that he or she needs to sign all legislation. Thee president does not normally have a choice but to sign – unless they decide to refer any piece of legislation to the supreme court for review – but if they do, they cannot then refuse to sign that legislation of which the court approves.
With the exception of a limited number of areas, the presidency as defined by the constitution is a largely ceremonial office, the aim of which is to act as a unifying figure. By convention, various presidents have avoided wading into areas that had been seen as potentially controversial or where there may be some clash with the incumbent government.
However this is a convention rather than a rule, and over the last three decades successive presidents have broadened the scope of the office.
President Higgins himself has probably gone further than his successors in this regard. He has at different times commented on issues relating to inequality, economic policy, and foreign affairs – and this has, at times, led to controversy. Last year, he had to apologise after comments made about Dame Louise Richardson, chair of the Government’s Consultative Forum on International Security Policy.
The context was a wide-ranging interview where the President expressed concerns about what he viewed as a “drift” in foreign policy away from its traditionally neutral stance. During that interview he noted that Richardson, a Waterford=born Oxford academic had an DBE – which led some to wonder if this was some kind of challenge to her objectivity.
While the specific issue regarding Richardson was quickly addressed, there was an ongoing debate about the wider role of the presidency in questioning broader government policy.
Regardless of the perceived controversy, Higgins remains a hugely popular figure and a unifying figure as he approaches the end of his second seven year term of office, and remained a unifying figure while raising the profile and role of the presidency when it comes to policy debate.
While he has caused a stir at times (and far more often than his predecessors) these have been relatively infrequent interventions.
The next presidential election takes place in October 2025. A likely key theme for that election will voters want to see a new president continue to take a more active and robust approach to policy debates that could bring them into conflict with the government of the day.
