Why Ireland’s Constitution should aspire to balance work, care, and security — not enshrine exhaustion.
Constitutions are meant to be North Stars. They aren’t diaries that record how society is today — they are compasses pointing us toward what we could be. The U.S. Constitution, for all its contradictions, was never a mirror of the 18th century: it was an aspiration toward something larger, and it took centuries for that aspiration to unfold.
Ireland’s Constitution, by contrast, still carries language that pins women firmly to the hearth. Article 41.2, drafted in 1937, declares:
“In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”
It was, in its time, meant as protection. But protection easily curdles into confinement.
The Referendum that Failed
In March 2024, Ireland held two constitutional referendums: one to redefine family beyond marriage, and another to replace Article 41.2 with a gender-neutral reference to care. The second — dubbed the “Care Amendment” — would have read:
“The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.”
Both amendments failed, spectacularly. Around three-quarters of voters rejected the new wording. It was the biggest referendum defeat in the history of the State.
Why? Some said the wording was vague. Others thought it was symbolic at best, toothless at worst. But at root, I think many felt it was trying to patch over a contradiction: acknowledging the importance of care, while doing nothing to change the economic reality that families live under.
The Reality Beneath the Words
This is where constitutions should speak not just to identity, but to conditions of life.
Right now, one in five children in Ireland lives in poverty when housing costs are included. Over 225,000 children — in a country that celebrates record GDP growth — grow up in households that can’t make ends meet. The ESRI has warned that child poverty rates are now on par with the financial crash years.
At the same time, more and more households require two full-time incomes just to survive. Dual 40-hour work weeks are treated as normal, while “time poverty” — the squeeze between jobs, commutes, and unpaid domestic labour — eats away at family life. Surveys show Irish women still carry the greater share of housework and caregiving, while men in dual-earner couples do little more than a quarter of it.
So families outsource: crèche, after-school clubs, hot school meals, breakfast schemes. All well-intentioned supports, but also a symptom of something deeper: we’ve built a system that makes being present in your own home a luxury.
What If the Constitution Said Something Else?
Imagine instead if our Constitution didn’t just remove stereotypes, but set a higher aim. Something like:
“The State recognises the shared value of caregiving and family life, and affirms that no household should be compelled by economic necessity to require both partners to work full-time in order to live. The State shall strive to support families in balancing paid work, caregiving, and communal life with dignity and security.”
That would be an aspiration. Not a quick fix, not a binding policy, but a principle. A reminder to lawmakers that dignity at home is as vital to society as productivity at work.
Why does this matter? Because the compulsion of both partners working full-time isn’t just an economic footnote — it’s a pressure that seeps into every corner of family and social life. It shows up in the stress levels of parents, the development of children, the breakdown of relationships, and the creeping sense that “home” is something you only pass through on the way to work.
In Ireland today, one in five children grows up in poverty when housing costs are counted. Consistent poverty has been rising again, back to levels we thought we had left behind after the financial crash. Families are running harder and harder on the treadmill, yet still falling short. The paradox is stark: record GDP figures on the one hand, record levels of child deprivation on the other.
We already know from international research that income supports make a difference. Where people have had unconditional or near-universal payments — whether called a dividend, a transfer, or even a basic income — the results are remarkably consistent: better mental health, less stress, stronger family stability, and more freedom to balance work with care. Alaska’s long-standing oil dividend showed that even modest, predictable payments encouraged families to invest in health and education. Pilot schemes elsewhere have seen families use the breathing space to spend more time on care, on community, and on building skills.
So perhaps it doesn’t matter whether the mechanism is called a Universal Basic Income, an AI dividend, or something else entirely. What matters is the principle: that the State creates the conditions for people to have choices, and that no household is forced into an 80-hour combined working week just to keep the lights on.
A constitutional aspiration along these lines would give us a benchmark. Budgets, tax reforms, welfare schemes, and labour law could all be measured against it. It would be a reminder that dignity at home is as vital to the common good as productivity in the office.
Beyond Reflection, Toward Aspiration
Constitutions should not be snapshots of social compromise. They should be beacons — setting direction even when we fall short.
Ireland missed an opportunity in 2024. But we can return to the question, and this time, set our sights higher: a society where raising a family doesn’t require outsourcing your presence, where partners can actually share the life of the home, and where poverty is not the price of choosing care.
Because the best foundation for a stable society isn’t GDP or growth targets. It’s homes where people have the time, security, and freedom to build a life together.
As always, be excellent to each other.
Leave a Reply