Background of the Convention

The Irish Constitutional Convention emerged in a unique political context following the 2011 general election, which was often described as an "electoral earthquake." The economic downturn of 2008 significantly reshaped voter preferences, leading to a coalition government between Fine Gael and Labour.

While not the first process of its kind globally, the Convention was heavily influenced by prior deliberative democratic initiatives, particularly the citizens' assemblies of British Columbia, Ontario, and the Netherlands (Farrell et al., 2020). It also built upon Ireland’s own experience with deliberative democracy, including the 2011 We the Citizens pilot assembly, which demonstrated the potential of direct citizen participation in constitutional reform.

In June 2012, both houses of the Oireachtas passed resolutions establishing the Convention. It was mandated to convene for at least eight Saturdays over a year, with its first working sessions beginning in early 2013. The Convention concluded its work in February 2014 (Farrell et al., 2018).

Despite some criticism (Carolan, 2015), academic assessments of the Convention have generally been positive (Flinders et al., 2016; Suteu, 2015; White, 2017). It was widely regarded as a successful deliberative process (Suiter et al., 2016), and many of its recommendations were implemented or considered in subsequent government initiatives (Farrell, 2018). It also paved the way for future experiments with citizens’ assemblies in Ireland.

Structure of the Convention

Membership selection

The Convention comprised 100 members:

1. 66 randomly selected citizens,
2. 33 politicians (selected by their parties from both Ireland and Northern Ireland),
3. 1 independent Chairperson.

The random selection process was conducted by Behaviours and Attitudes (see more here).

Political parties and groups in Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann nominated representatives on the basis of their relative strengths in the Oireachtas. Political parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly were invited to nominate one representative each.

Governance

Chairperson

The Chairperson was responsible for running the Convention and engaging necessary support services for its effective administration. As the main moderator, the Chairperson was selected by the Prime Minister (Taoiseach) and was independent. They had direction and control over the staff of the secretariat and other resources available, subject to the wishes of the Convention. The Chairperson also made recommendations on the management of business as needed.

Secretary and Secretariat

The Secretary and Secretariat were responsible for handling the logistics of the assembly, ensuring the smooth operation of the Convention.

Advisory Panel

At the outset of the process, the Chair and Secretary appointed an advisory panel of experts. This panel advised on the selection of experts who would present information to the Convention members. The advisory panel consisted of political scientists with expertise in deliberative democracy and a legal scholar.

Steering Group

A Steering Group was established to support the Convention in efficiently and effectively discharging its role and functions. The group assisted with planning and operational issues related to the work program. It was composed of the Chairperson, representatives from political parties, public members, and any other representatives deemed necessary by the Convention.

Structure of session

Proceedings

The Chairperson started the session by emphasizing five key principles guiding the Convention’s work:

1. Openness: Complete transparency, with all plenary sessions live-streamed.
2. Fairness: Ensuring all viewpoints were represented in discussions and briefing materials.
3. Equality of voice: All members, including citizens and politicians, had equal standing.
4. Efficiency: Maximizing limited time by providing materials in advance.
5. Collegiality: Encouraging constructive and respectful discussion.

The session focused on the historical and legal foundations of voting rights, international comparisons, and the potential implications of reform. Discussions covered voting age reforms, including historical trends, international precedents, and the impact of lowering the voting age on political engagement. The case for reducing the presidential term was examined through comparative political systems, assessing its effects on democratic accountability. Legal considerations for reform were outlined, highlighting constitutional challenges and practical implications. The session also explored international perspectives on youth voting and political participation.

The programme included:

1. Expert presentations: Briefing documents were provided in advance, and experts delivered short presentations followed by a Q&A session.
2. Small group deliberations: Members discussed the topics in closed sessions.
3. Plenary feedback sessions: Groups shared their insights and further expert contributions were considered.
4. Final deliberations and voting: The Convention formulated ballot questions and held votes to determine recommendations.

A more detailed overview of the programme can be found in the First Report here.

Voting and ballots

When a vote was required, it was conducted by secret ballot among the members present. The Chairperson, supported by at least two other members of the Convention, oversaw the voting process.

To facilitate structured decision-making, the voting process was divided into three stages. First, members determined whether to recommend reform on the issue at hand. If a majority supported reform, the second stage involved considering the specific details of the proposed changes. Finally, the third stage allowed members to vote on additional prominent themes that had arisen during deliberations.

Voting Age Reduction

The Convention considered whether to lower the voting age and, if so, to what age. The ballot results were as follows:

1. 52% supported reducing the voting age.
2. Among those in favor, 48% preferred lowering it to 16 rather than 17.
3. Proposals to reduce the age of candidacy or restrict voting age reduction to local elections were rejected by majorities of 51% and 68%, respectively.

Presidential Term Reduction

The Convention also debated reducing the presidential term from seven to five years and aligning it with local and European elections. The results were:

1. 57% opposed reducing the term.
2. 80% opposed aligning the presidential term with local and European elections.
3. Additional sub-ballots considered changes to the nomination process and candidate age requirements, but no significant consensus emerged.

A more detailed overview of the voting results are available in the First Report here.

Recommendations and Government response

The Convention recommended:

1. Lowering the voting age to 16.
2. Retaining the seven-year presidential term without alignment with other elections.

Additional recommendations included reducing the minimum age for presidential candidates and giving citizens a role in the nomination process.

These recommendations were compiled in the First Report (here), published in March 2013, and are available on the Citizens’ Assembly website (here).

The Government was required to respond within four months. A parliamentary debate took place on July 18, 2013.

Government response

1. On May 22, 2015, a referendum rejected a proposal to lower the minimum age for presidential candidates (see more).
2. The proposal to involve citizens in the presidential nomination process was referred to an Oireachtas committee, but no further information is available and it is unclear what the outcome of this committee was.
3. The Government considered reducing the voting age for local and European elections in time for the 2024 elections, but the bill lapsed due to the dissolution of parliament (see more).

A full overview of the Government's response is available here.