Debate Emerges on Irish Language Proficiency for Presidency

The question of whether the President of Ireland should be proficient in the Irish language has sparked renewed debate during the current election campaign. Prominent figures such as broadcaster Daithí Ó Sé have raised this issue, asking, “Is there any other country in the world that would pose this question to itself: is it necessary for the Head of State to speak the first language of the country?” The discussion is not merely academic; it has constitutional implications regarding the role of the President.

Historically, when Éamon de Valera outlined the responsibilities of the presidency during the constitutional debates, he emphasized the role of the President in protecting citizens’ rights and, crucially, safeguarding the Constitution itself. This includes the power to submit bills to the Supreme Court under Article 26, particularly when constitutional issues arise. This authority underscores the need for a strong understanding of constitutional matters, including language considerations.

The unique position of the Irish language in the Constitution is evident. The Irish text of the Constitution is the authoritative version, and it is not merely a translation of the English text. Initially, de Valera intended for the Constitution to exist solely in Irish. Consequently, discrepancies between the Irish and English versions have emerged, such as the eligibility age for presidential candidates. The English text states, “Every citizen who has reached his thirty-fifth year of age is eligible,” implying that a 34-year-old could qualify. In contrast, the Irish version stipulates that candidates must be “thirty-five years completed,” establishing a clear requirement.

This raises technical and legal questions about the President’s linguistic capabilities. While it may not be necessary for the President to be fluent in Irish, some argue that familiarity with the language is essential given its constitutional significance. The importance of bilingualism is illustrated by examples from other nations, such as Canada, where it is expected that public officials, including Senators, are fully bilingual in English and French.

In Canada, the appointment of Mary Simon as Governor General in 2021 prompted significant discussion due to her limited proficiency in French, despite her fluency in English and Inuktitut. This situation highlighted the deep-rooted expectations of bilingualism in Canadian society. Even in cases where candidates for high office lack proficiency in both official languages, there is a strong expectation that they will learn the other language post-appointment.

Ireland has seen similar experiences. Former President Mary McAleese, while not fluent in Irish at the time of her election, recognized the language’s importance and made substantial efforts to improve her skills during her term. Similarly, Joe McHugh, appointed as Minister for the Irish language, acknowledged his lack of Irish at the outset of his role but dedicated himself to learning the language to fulfill his official duties effectively.

While mandating proficiency in Irish for presidential candidates may not be practical, there is a compelling argument for establishing clear expectations regarding engagement with the language. Such a commitment would not only enhance the symbolic role of the presidency but also contribute significantly to the promotion of the national language.

As Daithí Ó Sé articulated, “It is the Irish language that is central to the presidency, and we all expect the president to engage with it meaningfully.” The ongoing discourse reflects a broader societal commitment to the Irish language and cultural heritage, emphasizing the need for future leaders to appreciate and engage with Ireland’s linguistic identity.

The discussion continues as the country prepares for the upcoming election, with many citizens advocating for a presidency that genuinely reflects the linguistic and cultural diversity of Ireland.