On 8 March voters in the South decisively rejected both the ‘Family’ and ‘Care’ referenda. The scale of the ‘No’ votes to both were a considerable surprise to all and were not predicted. One incorrect conclusion drawn by some is that these votes represent some sort of shift to the right or even far right. This is not the case.
A more accurate conclusion would focus on the confusing nature of both votes. An added factor was a clear desire to kick back against an out-of-touch government. The crass opportunism of holding the vote on 8 March, International Women’s Day, can’t have helped either.
Family Referendum: Wording the Key Issue
The rejection of the ‘Family’ referendum is a blow to many whose family structures do not match the traditional one based upon marriage. The confusion about what a ‘durable relationship’ meant was probably the decisive factor in the ‘No’ vote. No-one in the government, from the Taoiseach right down to backbench TDs, could give any coherent explanation of what a ‘durable relationship’ would mean if this referendum was accepted. And we now know that some government TDs campaigned for a ‘Yes’ but voted ‘No’!
This lack of clarity allowed right wing figures, particularly lawyers like Michael McDowell and Maria Steen, to exploit ambiguity in the amendment’s wording to sow doubt in people’s minds.
Disabled People Mobilise to Defeat the Care Amendment
In the weeks leading up to the vote there was a concerted mobilisation of disabled people and their carers and advocates to call for a ‘No’ vote in the Care referendum. This mobilisation rightly focused on the severe limitations of the use of the word ‘strive’ in the proposed amendment.
As a group who have been at the very sharpest edge of the Irish state’s capacity for cruelty since 1922, disabled people and their carers correctly intuited that this word would be used to restrict the State’s responsibility to provide meaningful care and the right to live independently. This intuition has been confirmed by a subsequent report in The Irish Times that officials in the Department of Finance believed that the word ‘strive’ was chosen explicitly ‘…to avoid a concrete and mandatory obligation to provide support….’
Care Referendum Poses Severe Challenge for the Left
The Care referendum posed a severe challenge to the left and labour movement. If the proposed amendment was rejected the archaic language of a ‘woman’s place is in the home’ would remain in place. But if the amendment succeeded the wording could see disabled people placed in an even worse position in their struggle to receive meaningful care from the State. It would have also meant that the family, not the State, would remain almost solely responsible for the provision of care to disabled people. With the State’s role merely to ‘strive’ to support this. As Marxists our position is that care should be provided by the State through the public health system. Families should not have to shoulder this responsibility.
People Before Profit campaigned for a ‘Yes’ vote. In an article on 6 March they argue, correctly, that regardless of the result it would be necessary to continue to fight for carer and disability rights. Despite their official position in support of a ‘Yes’ vote in this referendum, many grassroots members publicly supported and called for a ‘No’ vote.
The Socialist Party campaigned for a ‘Yes’ vote in the Care referendum right up to 4 March, four days before the vote, at which point they abruptly shifted to calling for a ‘No’ vote. The ostensible reason they gave for this was that they had listened to disabled activists and carers and decided, as a consequence, to call for a rejection of the Care amendment.
This suggests, entirely in keeping with the political trajectory of this organisation over the past number of years, in which identity politics predominates, that the full import of the wording of the referendum was not properly discussed prior to deciding to campaign for a ‘Yes’. The revolt within the Socialist Party’s feminist front group, ROSA, over the call for a ‘Yes’ to the Care referendum, when this was obviously a problematic position, was probably decisive in the last-minute decision to shift to a ‘No’.
Militant Left, by applying a Marxist analysis, had before the Socialist Party’s U-turn, clearly identified the problematic nature of the Care referendum.
Limits of Parliamentary Socialism
As these referenda proved, socialist forces in parliament face real dilemmas when called upon to take a position on changes to a bourgeois constitution. Under capitalism these are reactionary documents. Bunreacht na hÉireann is no different.
The Care referendum is a good example of how socialist organisations are sometimes forced to take a position on a terrain not of their choosing. This can lead to political confusion, errors, opportunism and, ultimately, demoralisation.
Following the votes on 8 March no new rights or advances have been won. The status quo remains in place. Many families remain on legally uncertain ground, while disabled people must continue to face the ferocity of the Irish state in their fight for a better life.
It is impossible to build, under conditions of capitalism, the type of health and care system that genuinely meets human needs. The tension between the demands for profit and the need to provide decent care can never be resolved. The degeneration of the care system in England, following its takeover by ‘for profit’ care providers is a clear warning of what ‘striving’ to provide care could mean in practice. We need to build mass struggle by the working class to push for a decent care system in the here and now. We need to build a revolutionary force of the working class to end capitalism, once and for all.