Irish Language Debate Sparks Discussion on Presidential Qualifications

The ongoing presidential campaign in Ireland has reignited a critical question: Should the President be required to speak Irish? This topic has been raised repeatedly, with prominent figures like Daithí Ó Sé questioning the necessity of fluency in the national language for the country’s highest office. Ó Sé further posed an intriguing comparison, asking if any other nation would place such an emphasis on the head of state being fluent in the official language.

The argument for proficiency in Irish is rooted in constitutional obligations. Historically, Eamon de Valera emphasized the President’s role in protecting the rights of the people and, notably, the Constitution itself. This responsibility is evident in the extensive powers granted to the President, including the authority to refer bills to the Supreme Court under Article 26, especially when constitutional issues are raised. The ability to present bills before the Court is a significant power, as once the Court affirms a constitutional bill, it cannot be contested again.

Understanding constitutional matters is vital for the President, particularly regarding when to present a bill to the Supreme Court. The Irish version of the Constitution holds special status as the official text, rather than just a translation. During the drafting process, de Valera intended for an Irish-only version, but ultimately teams produced both English and Irish texts, leading to discrepancies. For instance, the English text states, “Every citizen who has reached his thirty-fifth year of age is eligible” to serve as President, implying that a 34-year-old would qualify. Conversely, the Irish text stipulates that one must be “thirty-five years completed,” necessitating candidates to be at least 35 years old.

This distinction highlights the legal precedence of the Irish language in legislative matters. While there are no specific qualifications mandating fluency for presidential candidates, the limited scope of presidential powers makes it challenging to argue that legislative proficiency is essential for the office. However, the role of the President carries symbolic weight, representing the Irish people and their heritage.

If Ireland is serious about its cultural identity, heritage, and language, it seems reasonable to expect the President to speak Irish to some degree. The concept of Governmentality, proposed by French scholar Michel Foucault, suggests that governments implement laws and policies to shape society. If the Irish State values the Irish language, it would be appropriate for its representatives, including the President, to communicate in it.

Bilingual or multilingual states demonstrate the importance of language proficiency. In Canada, for example, Senators are expected to be fully fluent in both English and French. The appointment of Mary Simon in 2021, who spoke English and Inuktitut but had limited French, sparked significant debate about bilingualism and representation in Canadian society. While Simon pledged to improve her French, the controversy revealed deep-rooted sentiments regarding bilingualism in Canada.

Similar experiences have been observed in Ireland. Although Mary McAleese was not fluent in Irish when elected, she recognized the language’s significance and worked diligently to improve her skills. Over time, she became comfortable delivering speeches and engaging with the public in Irish, symbolizing the importance of the language to the presidency.

On the other hand, when Joe McHugh was appointed as Minister for the Irish language, he admitted to having no knowledge of Irish. However, he quickly took up learning the language and diligently fulfilled his official duties in Irish within a short timeframe. This effort underscores the importance of commitment to the language, even if fluency is not strictly required for candidacy.

While it may not be practical to enforce a legal requirement for fluency in Irish for presidential candidates, there should be a strong expectation that the officeholder actively engages with and promotes the language in a meaningful and substantial way. Failing to do so could not only diminish the symbolic role of the presidency but also represent a significant setback in promoting Ireland’s national language.

As Daithí Ó Sé remarked, “It is the Irish language that enriches the presidency, and we all expect the President to represent that.” The continued debate surrounding the Irish language in politics highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing tradition, representation, and modern governance in Ireland.