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 (Parliament)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 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 plenary session

Proceedings

The seventh session focused on Ireland’s electoral system, spanning two weekends to facilitate in-depth discussions. The first weekend examined the Proportional Representation - Single Transferable Vote (PR-STV) system and alternative electoral models. Experts provided insights into the functions of Dáil Éireann, the history of electoral reform, and international comparisons. A panel discussion with former politicians and parliamentary experts offered further perspectives. Members participated in roundtable discussions and plenary sessions to identify key themes.

The second weekend built on these discussions, incorporating additional expert input and debates on specific electoral reforms. Members reviewed public submissions, considered proposals from advocacy groups, and refined the ballot structure. The session also included engagement with visiting politicians from Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Yemen, organized by the Irish delegation of AWEPA. The weekend concluded with a review of remaining constitutional amendment proposals, final deliberations, voting, and the announcement of results.

The programme included:

1. Expert presentations: Academic experts in law and social science (family therapy/psychology) provided insights on same-sex marriage and its legal and societal implications.
2. Advocacy and civil society groups: Representatives from various advocacy organizations presented their perspectives.
3. Small group deliberations: Members engaged in roundtable discussions to explore the issues in depth.
4. Plenary sessions: The key themes emerging from the small group discussions were shared and debated.
5. Q&A with advisory panel: Members had an opportunity to clarify outstanding questions before voting.
6. Final deliberations and voting: Members voted on recommendations based on their deliberations.

More details of the programme can be found in the Seventh 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.

A slight majority (54%) supported making changes to the PR-STV electoral system, but there was strong opposition (79%) to replacing it with the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system. Among those favoring modifications, 86% supported larger constituencies with a minimum of five seats, while 67% backed changes to the alphabetical ordering of candidates on ballots. However, a majority (59%) opposed altering the number of TDs in Dáil Éireann.

There was broad support for enhancing democratic participation, with 83% in favor of introducing direct democracy measures, such as citizen initiatives. Additional electoral reforms also received overwhelming approval, including the establishment of an Electoral Commission (97%), extended polling hours (89%), improved access to postal voting (91%), and measures to enhance voter turnout (96%). Ensuring the accuracy of the electoral register received unanimous support (100%), while 95% endorsed implementing voting education programs in schools.

The detailed results of the ballot results can be found in the Convention’s Seventh Report here.

Recommendations and Government response

The Convention made the following recommendations:

1. Enhance the office of the Ceann Comhairle.
2. Elect the Ceann Comhairle by secret ballot.
3. Include reference to Dáil Committees in the Constitution.
4. Amend Article 17.2 relating to prior government approval for expenditure proposals.
5. Include external members and former TDs in the Dáil Reform Committee.
6. Task the Dáil Reform Committee with bringing forward genuine reform proposals.
7. Allow members to set the Dáil agenda in a forum chaired by the Ceann Comhairle.
8. Implement a proportionate allocation of committee chairs and elect them by secret ballot.
9. Provide more technical and professional resources to committees.
10. Grant the Working Group of Committee Chairs the power to call the Taoiseach.
11. Increase the use of “free votes” on Dáil and committee business.
12. Create a procedure for all TDs to make recommendations that involve public spending.

These recommendations were compiled in the Seventh Report (here), published in March 2014, and are available on the Citizens’ Assembly website (here).

The Government was required to respond within four months. A parliamentary debate took place on January 14, 2016.

Government Response

1. In March 2016, the Ceann Comhairle was elected by secret ballot for the first time.
2. The Sub-Committee on Dáil Reform published its final report in May 2016, with ongoing implementation of recommendations.
3. A Committee on Standing Orders and Dáil Reform was established on March 5, 2020, to continue reforms.

More details on the Government’s response to the recommendations can be found here.