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 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 first day (Feb 16, 2013) focused on the legal and social implications of amending Article 41.2, examining international examples and potential reforms. Discussions included proposals for a more inclusive, gender-neutral constitutional provision and the recognition of care work. The afternoon session addressed women’s participation in public life, highlighting international best practices and strategies for enhancing political engagement and representation. The day concluded with small-group deliberations and a plenary session to identify the overarching themes.

The second day (Feb 17, 2013) reviewed the main themes and finalized the ballot paper. A panel discussion featured representatives from advocacy organizations, who provided perspectives on gender equality and political participation. Members engaged in a final Q&A before deliberations and voting. The session concluded with the announcement of results and discussions on next steps.

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.

A more detailed overview of the programme can be found in the Third 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.

The Convention considered whether to amend the Constitution to allow for same-sex marriage. 79% supported changing the Constitution to allow for civil marriage for same-sex couples.

Among those in favor of change, the Convention considered whether the amendment should be permissive or directive:

1. 78% supported a directive amendment, requiring the State to enact laws providing for same-sex marriage.
2. 17% supported a permissive amendment, allowing but not requiring the State to enact such laws.

The Convention also considered the legal implications of changing marriage laws, particularly regarding parentage, guardianship, and the upbringing of children, with 81% supporting a requirement for the State to enact necessary legal changes in these areas.

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

Recommendations and Government response

The Convention made the following recommendations:

1. Amend the Constitution to include an explicit provision on gender equality.
2. Amend the Constitution to allow for same-sex marriage, with the amendment being ‘directive’.
3. Ensure that, in the event of this amendment, the State enacts laws incorporating necessary changes regarding parentage, guardianship, and upbringing of children.

These recommendations were compiled in the Third Report (here), published in June 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 December 17, 2013.

Government Response

The Government responded by holding a referendum on May 22, 2015, which resulted in the passage of the Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Act 2015. The amendment was signed into law on August 29, 2015.

Prior to the amendment, the Constitution was widely interpreted as containing an implicit prohibition on same-sex marriage. The referendum was approved by 62% of voters, with a 61% turnout (see more). This marked the first time in history that a state legalised same-sex marriage through a popular vote (Johnston, 2015).

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