Originally published in Hot Press in 1990:

LIAM FAY: Why is someone with your proven radical pedigree prepared to run for an office that many people see as an irrelevant farce?

MARY ROBINSON: I'm not surprised that so many see the presidency as an irrelevancy and a farce. Most people, especially young people, would be wrong not to be sceptical or dismissive about it, because you have to be at least 38 to have had any chance to vote in a presidential election. We have diminished the significance of the office. This election is about giving it back the vitality of being linked with the people.

LF: A lot of people will react sceptically to that aspiration.

MR: Already, I've canvassed and spoken to a lot of young people and youth leaders and young groups because I really want young people to take an active interest in this election. I think that this presidential election is actually more significant for young people than a general election. That may sound strange but I genuinely believe that. It's an election about choosing a representative of the people outside politics. And if young people decide to choose somebody who wants to do the job conscientiously, they'll break open Irish politics in a way that could be very revolutionary. This could be a genuine people's election where the people can tell the politicians where to get off (laughs).

LF: Those are impressive claims. But aren't they also more than a little dishonest? After all, an Irish President is merely a ceremonial figurehead and any other interpretation of the role is hidebound by restrictive legislation and convention.

MR: Yes, that has been traditionally the case but it doesn't have to be that way. I think I am the first person to really look closely at what the President undertakes on day one as set out in the constitution and I have found that it is past Presidents and not the presidency itself which have let the people down. The newly-elected President undertakes two things: one is to maintain the constitution and laws as guardian of the constitution; the other is embodied in the phrase: I will dedicate my abilities to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland.

LF: In practical terms, does that have any meaning?

MR: As a lawyer, I read a lot into the way that that's framed. I will dedicate my abilities means I will work at it, I will use the skills I have for the welfare of the people. So in choosing a President, young people should look for somebody who has a track record of working for the welfare of the people, somebody who does things rather than just blathers on in political language.

I find it difficult to talk about myself and what I've achieved but I think my record stands up, especially in the area of using law to serve people. I have demonstrated that I could use law in a way that few people thought possible, in that I got the High Court and the Supreme Court to serve the welfare of people with no money. I would use the presidency in a similarly creative and imaginative way.

LF: Do you think you'd be allowed to do that by a Fianna Fáil government, for example?

MR: Oh yes, they would have no choice. Again that's the advantage of being a constitutional lawyer. I know the territory (laughs). The only restrictions on the office of presidency are when the President is carrying out official powers and functions. So if the President is referring a Bill to the Supreme Court, it must be done on the advice of the Council of State; the President must act on the advice of the government in relation to certain functions and so on - all of that is perfectly appropriate. I'm a democrat, I don't think the elected Head of State should be going off at a tangent from the democratic representative government.

However - and it' s a big however - there is no constitutional restraint on what I do outside of those official functions. As a President directly elected by the people of Ireland, I will have the most democratic job in the country. I'll be able to look Charlie Haughey in the eye and tell him to back off if necessary because I have been directly elected by the people as a whole and he hasn't.

LF: Would you, as President, openly criticise the Taoiseach and government if you objected to something they were doing?

MR: I don't think that would be my job. It would be a misconception of the role of the President to openly criticise the government. What would be of much more use as a resource would be to raise questions that don't come through in the present, rather narrowly-based system, to lend a voice to those on the ground. Take one area that I've already issued a statement on will be concentrating on during the campaign - the positive role of a President in relation to emigrants. That's not lip service. Just because you have to leave Ireland to look for work doesn't mean you cease to be an Irish citizen or that the President ceases to represent you. The link is there, it's just a question of making something practical of it. I've spoken to young emigrants, to parents of emigrants and to emigration agencies and what comes through is that nobody gives a shit about them.

LF: How would you change that?

MR: I believe a President could use Áras an Uachtaráin as a focus, a head-office if you like, that could draw together information, resources and sheer bloody determination to do something practical about this problem. There are a lot of people on the ground doing a lot to tackle the diverse problems that emigration causes but they don't have a public voice to speak out for them - a President could be that voice. A President could raise the question of voting rights for emigrants, for example. Or any one of a number of associated questions and if doing so meant an implicit criticism of the government then so be it. But my main role would be to complement the parliamentary process, not to confront it.

LF: To a large extent, the personality of a presidency is defined by the public functions and occasions which the President chooses to attend. Would you, for example, perform the official opening of a contraceptive stall in a Virgin Megastore?

MR: Yes. This is a very young country and I think it would be helpful to have a President who was in touch with what young people are doing. I was in Cork last week and I met a number of different groups ranging from the local Chamber of Commerce to The Trades Council to The Harbour Commissioners. But what I enjoyed most of all was meeting young people in voluntary groups such as the Rape Crisis Centre, an AIDS action group, a youth unemployment group and so on.

One group, in fact, was from a very working-class, very deprived area and a couple of women from that group came to see me. They were eloquent about the fact that they have a literacy and know-your-rights centre in Churchfield Avenue and they're up against multiple problems: high unemployment, high illiteracy etc. As I listened to them I realised that this is where the President should be. So I delayed going to a conference that I was supposed to attend and I went out with these women to their centre and walked around with them. To me it is a President's duty to be with women like that, who are investing a lot of time and energy, in a very significant way, to improve the lot of their community.

LF: So as soon as you're elected, the Irish Family Planning Association can ring you up and ask you to attend the opening of one of their clinics or outlets?

MR: Absolutely! I'd be delighted to hear from them.

LF: Would you officiate at the opening of a Gay Rights Centre for example?

MR: I don't see why not.

LF: Even if as President you would be guardian of a constitution which deems homosexual acts illegal?

MR: Well, just as in other areas like wanting to remove the ban on divorce or delete sections 2 and 3, as Mary Robinson I am proud of my record and of the stands I have taken. Because they have been stands that I had to pay a price for, they've given me a reputation for integrity. Therefore, I can say with integrity that as President I would be guardian of the constitution as it is. However, I have always felt strongly that homosexuality should be decriminalised. I say it now and will say it, if appropriate, in a personal capacity, later. While I would be guardian of the constitution as the people decide it, I could express personal reservations. So there would be nothing in my brief as President that would stop me officiating at something like that.

LF: There is a sizeable section of our society which would regard that sort of thing as highly improper behaviour for a Head of State. Would you fear a running battle with the powerful SPUC lobby, both inside and outside the Dáil?

MR: I'm not naive, so I do expect that there would be considerable reactionary resistance to the kind of presidency that I am proposing. However, my intention is not to engage in running battles with any sector of society. As well as highlighting certain problems, I would see my presidency as walking tall for Irish success, for quality, for excellence that would be another important aspect of the job. Actively causing division goes against the very ethos of the presidency but if I were to encounter any interference with my democratic mandate to work with the people on the ground, I can assure you that I would be in a very strong position to defeat it. I'd have the constitution and the people behind me.

David Norris & Mary Robinson

LF: As someone who has experienced concerted vilification in the past, are you expecting more of the same during the presidential election campaign?

MR: Yes, there is an expectation that there will be a certain amount of dirt flung at me during the campaign - hence I think people will see if for what it is. I've heard that the whisperings and hate-letters have already started in some areas. But we are prepared for that and don't see it having a big impact.

When I stood for election in Rathmines in 1977, there was a concerted distribution of leaflets which basically said that I was the - Contraceptive Mary - who was making a profit because I was married to the Robinson of Hayes, Conyngham and Robinson chemists and I was making a penny on every pill. Unfortunately, I was married to the wrong Robinson (laughs). There is no connection between us and the chemist people at all. But a claim like that two days before an election is impossible to counter and I was therefore tarred with that brush. I've learned that if you take a stand as I have done and am always prepared to do, then you pay the price.

LF: Is it true that you received a steady stream of used condoms in your mail throughout the 70s?

MR: That's right. They arrived on an almost daily basis for years. Often they were just garden-gloves cut up but a lot of the time they were genuine used condoms.

LF: And had they been used in the proper fashion?

MR: (laughs) To be honest, when something like that comes through the post you don't spend a lot of time examining it. But I doubt if they had been properly used that would somehow defeat the purpose. However, the more serious side of that is the fact that the substantial hate-mail which I received, especially in the early 70s, did have a profound effect on me. When you're young and idealistic and you passionately believe in something, it's an immense shock when suddenly you're wham up against hate an viciousness and slander of a very cruel sort. It was also very good for me as a young politician, I have no doubt about that. It gave me what I call the scar tissue - it hurt and the scars grew over it. I'm much tougher now. Even the sharpest criticism bounces off me nowadays. I just take it as part of the job.

LF: As one of the first female Senior Counsels in Ireland, you're credited with breaking down a lot of anti-women barriers in the legal profession. In practical terms, what kind of sexism and hostility did you come up against during your early days at the Bar?

MR: It was very nebulous. I never encountered any direct discrimination at the Bar itself. On the contrary, at times it helped to be a woman. If you were doing your job well as a barrister, it singled you out in a particular way as being competent when you had a number of male counterparts trying to distinguish themselves as well. The real barriers to women were more difficult to pin down at first. A lot of briefs get handed out in the golf club and the male lavatory.

LF: The lavatory?

MR: Yes, indeed. There must be something very congenial about those surroundings. But I found that male barristers regularly exchanged cases and discussed briefs in the gents. It's all part of the very male way in which the legal profession operates. You know, John realises late at night that he won't be able to take a case so he rings up his buddy Bill who he was probably in school with and plays rugby with. It's that kind of closed shop, male chumminess which excluded women completely.

LF: Are there not also more overt examples?

MR: Yes, especially in respect of how people dressed at the Bar. In 1980, after I had taken silk and became a Senior Counsel, I was very much in the public eye because I was the only woman SC at the time, and towards the end of that year, I began wearing trousers in the Law Library and this caused a lot of disapproving mumblings and mutterings. One particular rather pompous male barrister even went so far as to accost me and complained rather loudly that this just wasn't done. I turned around and told him that I had an excellent reason - my skirt no longer fitted me because I was pregnant with our youngest. The barrister was devastated, speechless – it was a big shock to him.

I did find actually that in the latter stages of my pregnancy, there was an edginess in most of my male counterparts in the Law Library. I was making them uncomfortable because I was visibly pregnant.

LF: Didn't you appear on The Women's Programme on RTE some years ago alongside John Kelly, when he argued that women were psychologically and emotionally unfit for the cut-and-thrust of legal life?

MR: That's right! I've retained a video of that incident actually as a reminder of how deeply imbued men like John Kelly were with that kind of attitude. I was very annoyed and shocked on the night, but all I could do was laugh because what else can you do when someone comes out with something as absurd as that? Anyway, I think he's been disproved over the years.

LF: Most people see the legal profession as an elitist closed-shop which operates purely in the interests of the wealthy - has that been your experience?

MR: To a large extent, yes. We haven't, for example, had a proper system of civil legal aid in this country. We haven't understood how important it is that people with a serious legal problem who can't afford a lawyer should have access to justice by way of legal aid. That's where this feeling that law is only for the rich stems from.

Now, to some extent, the question of access has improved significantly during the last ten years, but it should have happened earlier. And it has only happened now as a result of the very distinct contribution of bodies like FLAC (Free Legal Advice Centres), not because the overall system has changed. In fact, the legal system itself is still very elitist but there are a lot of young lawyers coming through who have served time in FLAC and they never forget their experiences there as they go on in practice, so things are slowly improving.

LF: But the people who wield the most power in the system are the judges and they are still, for the most part, senile, sexist and elitist old men who are totally removed from reality.

MR: Yes. The pool from which we draw our judges is too narrow. The pool consists only of barristers and, at that, successful, senior barristers. The bulk of those have been male. There's only one woman High Court Judge and no woman Supreme Court judge, though we are gradually seeing more women District Justices and at Circuit Court level. But the pool should be opened up to include solicitors and that would greatly increase the mix in our judiciary. Furthermore, being a judge is a skilled job and, under our system, it requires a background of training that our judges do not get.

LF: What sort of training?

MR: In Britain now all judges go to school for significant periods of time and they serve an apprenticeship with an existing judge before they themselves become judges. It's fundamental that the Irish legal system grasps the need for training of judges now, before we allow another generation of the kind of judges you described to take up those positions.

LF: But even with training, a lot of British judges have made extraordinary decisions in recent years doesn't the problem have to do with the rarefied backgrounds that judges come from?

MR: Of course, that is a major factor and one that can only be alleviated by better access to education and so on. But we still shouldn't lose sight of the fact that intensive training for judges is appropriate - and I would say required - yet our judges receive no training or preparation whatsoever.

LF: Another great male bastion and one with which you would have close contact as President is our Defence Forces. Wouldn't the whole ethos of the army alienate and offend you?

MR: Yes, well, as a woman and as someone who has a certain set of internal values which would be quite different from the ethos of the Defence Forces, my dealings with the army would probably have a very different emphasis than previous Presidents have had.

LF: In what way?

MR: I wouldn't like to set myself up against the Defence Forces and I would hope to have very good relations with both the senior personnel and the ordinary soldiers right down to the lowest rank. However, rather than just go through the usual military routines, I think that part of my presidential ear and voice would be with the army wives and their concerns. There's no reason why I wouldn't regularly have tea with a group of army wives, listen to what they have to say and see what initiatives I could take on their behalf.

LF: Would you be able to keep a straight face while you inspected the troops?

MR: It would take a lot of getting used to (laughs) and I'm sure that it's not something that I would ever really feel comfortable doing. I would like to take a thoughtful and reflective attitude towards duties like that – I wouldn't just jump at something and decide that I would refuse to inspect the troops or anything like that. The President is Chief of the Armed Forces under the constitution and therefore the approach should be a positive one. But I think being positive could also mean trying to instil values in the Defence Forces that may not be strongly there, values like equality and equality of opportunity.

LF: In the past, you were always seen as an independent-minded career woman, but now that you're running for President your image seems to have undergone a transformation - for example, your husband and children have been wheeled out to appeal to the family values voters. Isn't that a little cynical?

MR: No, I don't think so. My family has always been a priority with me and my relationship with my children has been fundamental - that has been the case throughout my career. But what was happening up to now was that my private life was kept very private. That was the way both Nick and I ensured that no matter what else either of us were involved in, our children were kept out of the public glare but were still very much to the forefront of our lives.

Sacrificing that privacy during this presidential election has not been done easily or cynically. In fact, I would say that opening up our family and subjecting them to public scrutiny is probably the highest personal price that I have had to pay at any point in my career. It's not something that I like doing at all.

LF: Why do it, then?

MR: Well, it's impossible not to. If I did become President, that would affect my whole family - not just me. Apart from the obvious thing of moving house, there would be various other commitments imposed upon them, socially and so on. There is almost an obligation on the candidates to bring their families into the picture during the campaign.

LF Are your children looking forward to moving into Áras an Uachtaráin?

MR: None of us are particularly enthusiastic about moving, to be honest with you, but if I am President, it will be done. Tessa, our eldest, is just about to start college and it's not easy for her with all of this going on at the moment. William, who is 16, is getting a lot of slagging from his pals so he's not too happy either. But Aubrey, our youngest, is triumphing and really looking forward to moving to Áras an Uachtaráin, primarily because it's beside the zoo, but also because he's a drummer in a rock group and he and his pals have decided that they'll have loads of room to rehearse there. He also intends inviting the public in and giving a free gig in Áras an Uachtaráin! The group call themselves Faraway and the rest of us always say "as possible" (laughs). You know the Kit-Kat ad, well, the members of Faraway are singularly without talent, look awful etc. etc. But they may well go a long way. They write their own material and they make an awful lot of noise and if their drummer gets his way they are going to launch their careers with a big concert in the presidential home.

LF: Are you a practising Catholic?

MR: Yes, in the sense that I go to Mass and bring our children to Mass - well, I bring the 9-year-old to Mass, the others look after themselves. I happen to like the Folk Mass in Rathmines and that's where we go, but if I miss a Sunday it's not the end of the world. My approach is a deep one but it's not a fully paid-up, play-by-the-rules or rot-in-hell approach.

LF: But as someone who has spent much of their working life trying to undo the clutches of Catholicism from the lives of the people of this country, surely you'd agree that the church has had a malevolent influence on our society?

MR: I think there are, literally, at least two churches because on any of the stands that I have taken I could point to priests and nuns who are there on the barricades with me. Those people are great and many of them are good friends. I am quite close to many of these priests and nuns and I believe that they are carrying the real Christian message.

LF: But even so, there are very few of them.

MR: They are there, however, and we shouldn't lose sight of that. But yes, I agree that the whole patriarchal, male-dominated presence of the Catholic Church is probably the worst aspect of all the establishment forces that have sought to do down women over the years. It's an awful pity that the Catholic Church hasn't grasped the importance of being on the side of equality and equal opportunity. I'd love to see women priests, women bishops and even a woman Pope and I'm sure that will happen in time.

LF: As President, would you express your criticisms of the Catholic Church's role in society to the various bishops that you would undoubtedly come into contact with?

MR: Yes, in the sense of expressing a personal view round a table. I would want it to be appropriate before I would express a view further than that. But there is nothing in the constitution that would stop me from doing so if it was in the interests of the welfare of the people.

LF: So in what sort of scenario could you envisage President Mary Robinson openly criticising the Catholic Church?

MR: I'd prefer not to speculate, but if it was appropriate you can rest assured that it would be done.

LF: Are you looking forward to the many religious functions that as President you'd be obliged to attend?

MR: It's not the aspect of the job that most excites me, but again, I will approach it in as positive a fashion as possible.

LF: One of the most practical powers that an Irish President has is the referring to the Supreme Court of a Bill if he or she believes that it is not compatible with the constitution. Are there any recent Bills that you would have dealt with in such a fashion?

MR: As a constitutional lawyer, I would be very slow to refer Bills to the Supreme Court because you're referring the whole Bill in a hypothetical sense, you're looking for the potential hypothetical problem that could bring it into conflict with the constitution. And the way it works is that, if under Article 28 the Supreme Court decides that a Bill is not constitutionally compatible, then it doesn't become law, but if it is decided that it is constitutionally compatible then not only will it be signed into law but it can never again be challenged. My opinion is that it's better if constitutional lawyers challenge particular, precise sub-sections and paragraphs of acts on behalf of clients. Then there'll be other opportunities to challenge other sections if there's a reason for it.

However, I'll give you an example of a Bill that I actually recommended should be referred to the Supreme Court. I was informally asked some years ago by a friend who was in the Council of State at the time of the Adoption Bill, which extended adoption to children of a marriage which had failed, I was asked if that Bill should be referred to the Supreme Court and I said that it was vital that it be referred. It was vital in this case that there be certainty in the law. It was vital in fact that this Bill have constitutional immunity because you have so many people involved – the adoptive couple, both the parents, the children themselves – and you need certainty of framework. So, while on the whole I'd be slow to refer, I would do so in cases like the Adoption Bill where enshrining constitutional immunity is desirable.

LF: How would you react if a Government Minister criticised you for such a move, as happened when Paddy Donegan called Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh a thundering disgrace - because he had referred a Justice Bill to the Supreme Court?

MR: I would immediately call up the Taoiseach of the day and demand both an apology and a resignation. President Ó Dálaigh was perfectly right to do what he did. He was a jurist of eminent standing and he knew more about it than I do.

LF: So why did he resign?

MR: I think that the reasons that subsequently led to his resignation was that he hadn't been elected by the people - he was a nominated President and so felt a little less secure. An elected President has much greater strength and can operate far more autonomously. Furthermore, there is an express provision in the constitution which requires the Taoiseach to keep the President informed on domestic and international matters and I think that provision has been ignored in the past. If I were to find, having been elected by the people, that I wasn't being fully informed on the Gulf crisis, for example, I would have no hesitation in hauling the Taoiseach in and demanding that I be kept up to date.

LF: Do you think Paddy Hillery is kept fully informed on such matters?

MR: I wouldn't think so, but I want to make it clear that the kind of comments that I'm making are not in any way a criticism of Dr. Paddy Hillery. It's important to make that point because I personally know Paddy Hillery quite well. I knew him when he was, I think, a very good Commissioner for Social Affairs in Brussels and when he was a Minister.

LF: Do you ever get disillusioned about the possibility of real social reform in this country when there seems to be such innate conservatism among our legislators?

MR: I get a mixture of disillusioned and angry at the growing inequality in this country. The problems that face so many people in this country are so immense. And the situation is worse now than it was in 1969 when I started off in law - the divide between rich and poor has certainly widened. People with good, secure jobs in Ireland today have a reasonably good life at the moment, and to a large extent that's all the media covers. That's what you see on RTE, that's what you see in the papers. But there is a grinding, humiliating, awful poverty in Ireland which is not there in a lot of European countries. Why? We're a republic, we're a country that cares about our children and their education... so why do we tolerate such inequality?

LF: Do you think you can do more to change that as President than as, say, a TD?

MR: In a funny way, yes. It's certainly a more useful forum for my skills which are ultimately legal ones, representing people and bringing their problems to court. As a President I think I could be a well-informed voice that spoke about equality. One of the reasons why I retired from the Senate in August of 89 was that I felt I was able to achieve more in my legal career than I could do in the Dáil or the Senate. And I now paradoxically feel that this job of President, which is supposed to be without power, could offer me my most effective role of all.

LF: Can you win?

MR: This is going to be a very different election from any we've ever had. I am very encouraged by the response I've had throughout the country, and because there are three candidates, it's not going to be decided on the first count – no-one's going to get 51%. It's going to be decided on transfers so the important thing is to be still there on the second and third counts. And yes, I think I can win.

Credit: President of Ireland / Uachtarán na hÉireann