The 2025 presidential election played out in a series of unfortunate events. From Catherine Connolly’s unclear and controversial meetings with Syrian Assad loyalists, to Heather Humphreys’ ties to the Orange Order, to her views on rural hunting and on transgender recognition, to Jim Gavin’s unpaid tenant scandal and unprecedented withdrawal. Why was this election, more than any previous to it, dreaded by all?
One of the main voiced concerns was that people were just not convinced that these candidates were suitable. Major frustrations stemmed from the nomination process. Candidates essentially had to be backed by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, or in this particular case, a united left. People are already exasperated with the current ineffectual government; the political backing of these candidates did not go down smoothly with the public. Some people expressed annoyance that not even Maria Steen could manage to muster up a nomination. One voter I spoke with said he would never have voted for Steen, but that “we, as citizens, should have the right to vote for her if we wanted to”.
Another point of contention with the nomination process is that an array of characters, like Conor McGregor, Michael Flatley, and Joanna Donnelly, were throwing their names in the pot, making it seem like some farcical free-for-all, akin to an RTÉ Dancing with the Stars line-up. Many wondered whether it is the most democratic of processes. This dissatisfaction had a significant impact on factors such as voter turnout rates, political participation, increased political frustration, and anti-establishment attitudes.
In October, an Irish Times Ipsos B&A poll indicated that 6 per cent intended to spoil their vote on polling day. This is a considerable increase from the statistical norm. In the two previous presidential elections, between 1 per cent and 1.25 per cent of votes were spoiled. Once voting day finally came, over 13 per cent of Irish voters spoiled their ballot, according to the BBC.
A letter written in The Irish Times after Jim Gavin’s withdrawal sums this up: “Sir, – Can we please ask Michael D to hang on for another six-nine months whilst we sort out this farce. Thankfully, now I only have two people that I don’t want to vote for, but is that the best we can do?” It is an unfortunate reality that the citizens of this country felt they were not offered a suitable or desirable candidate.
Voter turnout rates have been consistently dropping over the last few decades in Irish elections. In 1965, the voter turnout rate for the general election was 75 per cent. Since then, there has been a steady decrease. In 2024, turnout was the lowest it has ever been in a general election, sitting at 59 per cent. Specifically in respect of Presidential elections, similar statistics follow. In 1990, voter turnout was 64 per cent; by 2018, this had decreased to 43 per cent. This election, voter turnout hung at 45.8 per cent.
Political participation in Ireland is now at an new low. One recent study indicated that Ireland has had one of the lowest average turnout levels in Western Europe across recent electoral contests. It found that turnout has declined in the absence of institutional change and suggests that this is because of generational replacement. New generations are less likely to vote than ever before because of the lack of institutional change. Young voters are uninspired by current politics and unable to see that voting can make a difference.
So why is this time different from previous presidential elections?
This cycle has brought about a definite rise in questioning the necessity of the presidential role in Ireland. In 2011, when Michael D. Higgins first ran for president, he was well-known and liked by many. With a strong political track record and no major scandals of the past hampering his campaign, voters were content with the “lovely Limerick man” taking office. By 2018, when he ran for his second term, there were five alternative candidates, three of whom came from the RTÉ television show Dragons’ Den. There was no such political censorship of any “unlikely” candidates on the ballot that we saw this year, and they were not denied the opportunity to run.
Another reason for the dissatisfaction in this campaign is the two-candidate race. Except for Mary McAleese’s 2004 re-election, there have not been fewer than three candidates in the presidential race since 1983. Considering the global political climate, this two-candidate race rings of US politics, where you are left to vote for the least worst candidate, and many do not even bother turning up to the polling stations on the day. Citizens were not impressed with the candidate line-up or their offerings and therefore, were left wondering what this was all for.
How did the current political environment impact this presidential election?
The current political climate also appeared to significantly influence the public’s perception of the election. People are frustrated with government action, or lack thereof, more precisely. They want effective and meaningful change, not an election that was an unnecessary waste of valuable time and money. Ireland is in the midst of a cost-of-living and housing crisis. Homelessness numbers are rising alongside emigration, and it seems that the government is doing little to improve this situation. Could it be that past governments are perceived as more effective or solution-driven? In 2008, harsh austerity measures were put in place to recover the Irish economy. Nowadays, even though there is a surplus of government funds, the government is wary of overspending in fear of repeating pre-2008 mistakes. The current government prefers long-term financial investment over emergency spending, which can seem ineffectual in a crisis as critical as housing. We are also locked into the red tape of planning laws, and are without access to either the labour or the resources to physically solve the crisis. This current crisis requires determined action as well as material ends, which is different to the economic crises faced in the 1980s and 2008. Between the 1940s and the 1970s, a strategic state housing policy provided over 50,000 homes built in the 1950s alone. This strategy was possible in part because labour was plentiful and land and supplies were cheap, but successive governments supported the determination to house their citizens. Today’s government is attempting to learn from their previous mistakes and not repeat old bailout methods, while also attempting to fix the crisis. As a result, no concrete tangible progress is occurring.
Irish politics is at risk of becoming renowned for ineffective action that lacks conviction or momentum to bring about change. Nomination processes are being brought into question as to just how democratic they really are. Young voters are unconvinced about the impact that voting can have on government action, and as a result, are not turning up to the polling stations. Long-time voters were unenthused by the candidate options, and many, for the first time, considered spoiling their ballots. Overall, it is the general frustration and dissatisfaction with the current government that has had the greatest impact on this election cycle. Voters will not be happy until major action is taken to improve the living conditions in this country. If only the politicians would act.
