Editorial - Who will you choose?

FROM being a seven-horse race, the Presidential election has turned into a two-horse gallop. In a most surprising turn of events, a person who was unknown outside his own circle a couple of years ago has, thanks to a television programme, become a nationally-known figure. He is now apparently in the lead over a man who has been involved in many areas of public life for over 40 years. [private] This is the paradox of modern life, by which an individual we have never met and who has no track record of public service can spring to prominence. It is no coincidence that before nominations closed, two other people who were considered as possible runners were Gay Byrne and Mícheál Ó Muircheartaigh, both famous because of the broadcast media. However in this constituency, given its conservative electoral history, it is likely that many voters are considering giving their No 1, not to the front runners Seán Gallagher or Michael D Higgins, but to one of the likely also-rans: Dana, Mary Davis, Martin McGuinness, Gay Mitchell, or David Norris. Much as struggling candidates like to decry the polls and say they are still in with a chance, the margin between the two most likely contenders and the others seems insurmountable. Most of those who have made up their minds to vote for one of the two contenders are unlikely to change at this stage, although Monday night's RTE TV debate may prompt some to shift allegiance. Therefore it falls to those who have plumped for one of the five outsiders to decide who gets their No 2 vote. This could be a very important decision for the future comfort of our country. The president does not have many powers, but they do exist, and they must be exercised judiciously and bravely. To give one example, President Ó Dálaigh resigned because of the attitude of the Government of the day to his quite proper referral of a bill to the Supreme Court. He was acting as the guardian of the Constitution, and was pilloried for it. Of the two front runners, who do we think would be most likely to take a principled stand to safeguard citizens' rights in the face of pressure from the Government? The President of Ireland has an important international role as the representative of the people both at home and abroad. He or she should be a good speaker in public, and an excellent conversationalist in private. And we should be reasonably certain that nothing in his or her past could be dragged up during the presidency to embarrass the office and the nation. Of the two front runners, who do we feel would best represent the country on an international stage? The answer to these questions seems to us to be Michael D Higgins. In the case of the first, he has a long history of promoting human rights and championing causes that passed from indifference or unpopularity to general acceptance. He is unlikely to flinch from a politically unpopular course in constitutional matters. In the case of the second, international relations, he is a captivating speaker, an intellectual and a poet who is also president of a soccer club, Galway United â€â€ a man comfortable in any company. Michael D would be our choice for a No 1 or a No 2 vote. The fact that he is from the west of Ireland, and is deeply rooted in Galway, as is his spouse Sabina, is a bonus. â€Â¢ â€Â¢ â€Â¢ WEâ€Ë†MUSTâ€Ë†NOT forget that there are two constitutional referendums to be decided on Thursday also. The first is on whether the pay of judges may be reduced while they are in office. While it may seem self-evident that it should, when the pay of everyone else in the public service has been cut, the reason the clause was in the constitution in the first place was to guarantee the freedom of judges from Government pressure. It is clear that there are sufficient safeguards against this in the wording of the amendment, and it should be passed. The second referendum is much more fraught with uncertainty. On the face of it, it seems right that individuals like bankers and irresponsible officials should be compelled to attend an Oireachtas inquiry. But grave misgivings have been voiced about how this amendment might give rise to abuse at some future time. 'If in doubt, leave out' might be the safer course of action for the moment. The proposal can be visited again, with proper debate this time. [/private]