The Complexity of Care: Unpacking Ireland's Referendum Result
As the results from Ireland's referendums on the 8th of March 2024 on the constitutional definitions of marriage and family care began to trickle in, a sense of dread grew. The headlines that followed painted a grim picture: "Ireland votes to keep women in the home" and "Referendums to modernise Irish constitution fail." These were the stark interpretations of the "no-no" vote in which the proposed amendments were overwhelmingly rejected by voters. In the wake of the successful same-sex marriage and abortion referendums as well as the passage in 2015 of the Gender Recognition Act, which allowed trans people to apply to have their preferred gender legally recognised by the state, the government likely believed that winning these votes would be straightforward, securing the country's status as a beacon of liberal progressivism.
The proposed changes to the constitutional definitions of marriage and family care were overwhelmingly rejected by voters. The proposed amendment to redefine the constitution's understanding of family was declined by a notable 67.7 per cent of voters. The proposed changes concerning family care faced an even more significant rejection, with a striking 73.9 per cent of voters against them. This result marked the most considerable defeat of an amendment in Irish constitutional history. The results signify that Ireland’s 1937 constitution will continue to uphold traditional values, often seen as out of touch with contemporary Ireland. The constitution asserts that marriage is a prerequisite for any family and implies that women’s societal values stem from their “duties in the home”.
The Intersection of Gender, Disability, and Care: Insights from the Irish Referendum
The complexity of the care referendum was notable. The proposal aimed to remove article 41.2, the "woman in the home" provision, and replace it with language that could potentially burden families with the responsibility of providing care, while the state would "strive" to support them. This proposal was met with resistance; many women felt compelled to preserve the clause to express their disapproval of the care amendment. The irony of this situation was not lost on women, who comprise the majority of full-time carers and paid care workers in Ireland.
The Free Legal Advice Centres (FLAC) expressed concerns in their analysis of the amendments, stating that the proposed wording was "ineffective" and "unlikely to provide carers, people with disabilities or older people with any new enforceable rights or require the state to provide improved childcare, personal assistance services, support for independent living, respite care, or supports for children with disabilities".
For physically capable women, this referendum was about alleviating a care obligation that has been unfairly placed on them for centuries. However, as per the perspective of a disabled woman such as Niamh Ní Hoireabhaird, a disability activist and journalist, society needs to be more caring, not less. The failure of the 'yes' campaign to acknowledge this tension caused significant frustration. The rights of disabled people were seemingly sacrificed by mainstream activists and NGOs who campaigned for a 'yes' vote, and pleas from disabled people and carers were disregarded.
The journey to the unsuccessful family amendment contrasts starkly with the preceding information campaign and parliamentary review process for the same-sex referendum and the abortion referendum, which underwent a thorough parliamentary review, including the publication of draft legislation indicating the potential shape of abortion law if the constitutional ban was repealed.
The government risks a serious error if it underestimates the political desire for change and attributes the result to conservative groups. Instead, it should recognize the public's desire for genuine equality and progress, rather than symbolic referendums that divide activists and NGOs. A revisit to a care referendum with different text in the future, under a government that respects the autonomy of disabled people, could ensure a 'yes' vote.
The referendum's failure is seen as a win for Ireland's disability community, and there is relief that Ireland did not vote to renounce the state's responsibility to care for its citizens. However, the outdated language defining a woman's role in the home will remain in the country's constitution until a government is prepared to deliver equality for all. This provides little consolation.
Voter Confusion and Government Apathy: The Failed Irish Referendum
The Irish government’s apparent lack of interest in addressing concerns about the wording of the amendments and the minimal campaigning from the ‘yes’ side, likely contributed to voter confusion leading to the rejection of change. The Irish electorate sent a clear message- any change to the constitution, especially those involving family values, needs to be clearly articulated, thoroughly debated and must resonate with the people’s realities and aspirations.
This outcome signifies that the 1937 constitution, which serves as the legal foundation for the Irish state, will continue to uphold traditional family values. It asserts marriage as a prerequisite for any family and implies that women's societal value stems from their "duties in the home."
These notions seem out of touch with the reality of contemporary Ireland, where two-fifths of children are born to unmarried parents, and most women work outside the household.
To the left’s disappointment, the government declined to amend the "women in the home" section using stronger language, which had been recommended by a citizens' assembly in 2021 and a parliamentary committee on gender equality in 2022. Instead, Taesach Leo Varadkar introduced alternative proposals in December that sidestepped much of the all-party committee's recommendations. These proposals were rushed through parliament the following month with minimal debate and scrutiny.
The vote was timed to coincide with International Women's Day but seemed to backfire due to a perceived lack of interest from the government in addressing concerns about the amendments. With minimal campaigning from the ‘yes’ side and limited effort to address ‘no’ side concerns, confused voters tended to reject change.
The results of the referendum indicate a clear message from the Irish electorate – any change to the constitution, particularly those involving family values, needs to be articulated, and thoroughly debated and must resonate with the realities and aspirations of the people.
Beyond the Referendum: The Need for Comprehensive Social Change in Ireland
The current situation in Ireland serves as a vital lesson for other countries dealing with the complex issues of enforceable socio-economic rights, childcare, disability services, elder care, declining fertility rates, shrinking workforces, ageing populations, and migration. These factors are driving debates in many economies around the world wrestling with the slowdown of population growth and the rise of far-right movements with regressive agendas aimed at curtailing women and girls’ rights.
To turn the tide, there is a pressing need for an open and honest conversation about the vital social and economic contributions made by women, not just in the public sphere, but also within the confines of the home. Instead of attempting to mould women to fit into a society and workforce designed and dominated by males, our ultimate goal should be to create societies that are barrier-free for everyone, regardless of gender.
Given the socio-economic landscape, Irish women might find innovative ways to utilize the eighty-seven-year-old “women in the home” provision in the constitution. If we, as a society, could acknowledge and accept that the common good cannot be achieved without recognising and respecting women's unpaid work, and if we’re to provide constitutional protection for this work in the form of financial compensation and other benefits, it could serve as a powerful lever for empowering women and fostering greater equality in the world
Although the failed amendments aimed to recognise the role of carers and embrace the reality of modern family life, they were ultimately insufficient. They were no substitutes for the comprehensive structural, cultural, economic, and legal changes needed to value unpaid care work. Tackling gender inequality in the labour market and driving societal shifts that lead to less misogyny and more male participation in caring and housework are imperative. The failure of these amendments offers a stark reminder of the uphill battle faced by those advocating for gender equality and social justice. It underscores the need for persistent, concerted efforts to effect the deep-seated changes necessary to truly value and reward unpaid care work and to promote gender equality across all facets of society.
References:
Cahillane, Laura, ‘Outdated Traditions, Modern Realities’, IPS Journal, 2024 <https://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/democracy-and-society/outdated-traditions-modern-realities-7370/> [accessed 25 March 2024]
Coyne, Ellen, ‘Women Do Most Unpaid Care Work Which Remains “Invisible and Undervalued” – Report’, Irish Independent, 7 February 2024 <https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/women-do-most-unpaid-care-work-which-remains-invisible-and-undervalued-report/a1611931131.html> [accessed 25 March 2024]
FLAC, ‘Legal and Human Rights Analysis of the Proposed Family & Care Constitutional Amendments’, FLAC - Promoting Access to Justice, 2024 <https://www.flac.ie/news/2024/02/19/flac-legal-and-human-rights-analysis-of-the-propos/> [accessed 25 March 2024]
Hoireabhaird, Niamh Ní, ‘Ireland’s “No-No” Vote Is a Victory for Human Rights – Not a Rejection of Progress’, The Guardian, 10 March 2024, section Opinion <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/10/ireland-no-vote-referendum> [accessed 25 March 2024]
McDonald, Dearbhail, ‘After the No-No Vote, Irish Women Are Stuck with a Sexist Constitution. Let’s Use It’, The Guardian, 12 March 2024, section Opinion <https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2024/mar/12/no-no-referendum-ireland-constitution-women> [accessed 25 March 2024]
McDonald, Dearbhail, ‘Ireland’s Women Need Equality – Not Tokenistic Referendums or Panic about Throuples’, The Guardian, 21 February 2024, section Opinion <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/21/ireland-women-equality-referendums-constitution> [accessed 25 March 2024]
Pogatchnik, Shawn, ‘Irish Voters Reject Bid to Rewrite Constitution’s View of Women and Family’, POLITICO, 9 March 2024 <https://www.politico.eu/article/irish-voters-reject-bid-to-rewrite-constitutions-view-women-family/> [accessed 25 March 2024]
About the Author:
Eileen Taylor is a dedicated Assistant Project Manager with a focus on human rights and Head of Research at Politics4Her Europe Hub. She has a Masters degree in Human Rights Law from SOAS, University of London. She excels in conducting thorough research, communicating effectively through various mediums, and managing projects for optimal impact. Passionate about advocating through an intersectional feminist perspective, she is deeply involved in human rights initiatives.
