In a parliamentary democracy it is undoubtedly the case that the people’s assembly must have authority to make decisions. There are certain matters that require urgent attention and others that are a question of maintaining a contemporaneous legislature and legislation.

There is, nevertheless, a fundamental requirement that the elected representative must act at all times in accordance with the decreed wishes of the electorate. This is often best done by reference to a written and observed constitution. It is the constitution that identifies the people’s priorities and ethos. In the case of a republic, it is the content of the constitution that makes one state democratic and another republic less than such.

We see, however, a tendency sometimes to view democracy as simply the right to vote and nothing else. It is a perception that many elected representatives allow survive. It tends to make for a situation where once elected, the same representatives feel free to organise affairs as they see fit. This may not always lead to the best of outcomes.

Take the recent debacle in the Republic of Ireland as a result of the privatisation of the Irish telecommunications firm, Eircom. The state owned firm was auctioned off to the people at a price that was unrealistically high. One year later and its shares are selling at about 60% of their issue cost. In spite of this, the CEO of the firm Alfie Kane, is to earn about Ir£1,000,000 as a "bonus" for his work last year and other members of the board will also receive handsome payments.

There is a good case to be made that nobody should be entitled to remuneration of that scale no matter what they do in a year. However, the fact that the company has under-performed in the past twelve months would surely dictate that a more modest reward would be in order. It was not to be though.

The annual general meeting of shareholders was well attended and a clear majority of those present voted to deny the CEO and his board their handsome dividend. It mattered little because the company is structured in such a way that a small number of powerful individuals with hefty political connections hold a decisive say in the company. So it now appears that in spite of widespread opposition, the board of Eircom will go ahead and award itself a minor fortune.

Mr Kane and his colleagues are apparently unabashed by the furore. They claim that such rewards are necessary in order to maintain a reasonable incentive to retain their services. They point to the fact that this is the logic of a free market society and they earn what the market estimates to be their worth.

The awful thing about it is that there is a certain truth in what Kane and his friends are saying. An unrestricted culture of enterprise does make huge payments to some people. It may be argued that Kane did not perform adequately and thus did not merit his reward. He would counter this by saying that the share price is a temporary phenomenon beyond his control and that in reality he is responsible for the day to day performance of a large hi-tec business.

In reality, if Eircom share prices had not slumped so dramatically there is little doubt that this case would not have come in for such public scrutiny or widespread condemnation. The board of the company is operating within the law whatever we might think of the morality of their behaviour. So too are all the other directors and board members who have drawn their fat fees without any fuss in this company and many others in Ireland.

The constitution is designed in such a way in the Republic that it protects this type of dealing. There is no point taking these events on a case by case basis. To make an improvement it is necessary to acquire a very different constitution. One that protects ordinary people and prevents excessive profit grabbing.