Ireland: Presidential Election 2011 - a state of the nation address

The controversy that has arisen from the nomination of Martin McGuinness, as the Sinn Féin candidate in the forthcoming presidential election, contains historical parallels that a student of Irish history will instantly recognise - almost like deja-vu in fact.

The opening shots (if that is not too loaded a phrase) were fired by Fine Gael's Alan Shatter, who is also the current Minister for Justice, quickly followed by his party's own candidate for the presidency, Gay Mitchell. Shatter questioned the Sinn Féin's candidate 'suitability' commenting:

That party's failure and his failure in particular to embrace the queen's visit which took place four months ago ... indicates that he isn't an appropriate person to be our president. - see RTÉ News [our italics]

Shatter's affectionate use of the definite article (she's just not any old queen!) in deference to the head of state of a foreign country is of course highly suggestive of his background and political leanings. It's probably a moot point to ask whether such a display is suitable for a government official making a public statement.

'Failure to embrace' the official visit of Queen Elizabeth II of England (first of Scotland) was not the exclusive domain of Martin McGuinness, or even Sinn Féin, in any case. It is fair to say that the overwhelming public reaction was one of indifference, mingled with dismay at the heavy-handed security presence foisted upon the country during her stay. Presumably too, it would have been Alan Shatter himself, in his capacity as Minister for Justice who would have been instrumental in sanctioning and authorising this.

More ominous soundings were issued by his party colleague and presidential candidate, Gay Mitchell however. He told RTÉ News:

I have spent my life defending this State, and I am not about to surrender it to people who will change it from the inside.

What does all this mean? What issues does it raise? In particular, the question arises: How far does he propose to go in his bid to prevent people from 'changing the state from the inside'? Does this not also illustrate the fact that if people are thwarted from changing things by the legitimate route (i.e. from the inside) they will seek (perhaps with justification) to use 'illegitimate' means?

While it is funny to observe the hysterical reactions that archaic mindsets can produce, there is a definite historical origin that is worth considering. Fine Gael are the political descendants of those who supported the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922, defending it in the civil war which that treaty precipitated. Of all the political forces in Ireland, past and present, they have always taken to heart their self-appointed role as 'defenders of the realm' - more often than not with little or no notion of political irony, let alone a sense of humour to guide them.

It was their political grouping (then going under the name of Cumann na nGaedheal) which ran the Irish state for the first ten years or so after gaining independence. By 1926 however sections of the anti-treaty forces re-grouped under a new political formation that adopted the name Fianna Fáil. Almost immediately they began to mount a serious electoral challenge to the existing government. According the the Fianna Fáil website, the party's constitution and aims laid down at the first Ard Fheis pledged:

1. To secure the unity and independence of Ireland as a Republic.
2. To restore the Irish language as the spoken language of the people, and to develop a distinctive national life in accordance with Irish traditions and ideals.
3. To make the resources and wealth of Ireland subservient to the needs and welfare of all the people of Ireland.
4. To make Ireland, as far as possible, economically self-contained and self-sufficing.
5. To establish as many families as practicable on the land.
6. By suitable distribution of power to promote the ruralisation of industries essential to the lives of the people as opposed to their concentration in cities.
7. To carry out the Democratic Programme of the First Dáil.

While the new party grew fast, this growth was somewhat hampered by its abstentionist policy in relation to Dáil Éireann. Fianna Fáil's opposition to Dáil Éireann stemmed mainly from Article 17 of the 1922 Constitution which read:

I (name) do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established, and that I will be faithful to H.M. King George V, his heirs and successors by law in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of nations. - see Wikipedia

This oath was a requirement for duly elected TDs to be able to take their seats. In 1927, following the assassination of Kevin O'Higgins, the Cumann na nGaedheal government, under W.T. Cosgrave, introduced a series of repressive measures which were widely unpopular. They also introduced a law requiring all Dáil candidates to promise that they would take the oath in order to contest Dáil elections. It can be seen therefore that Alan Shatter is not the first Irish political leader, who has attempted to make subservience to a foreign monarch a 'suitability criterion' for those seeking public office, even within the framework of a supposedly independent and republian-oriented Irish state.

Faced with the options, Fianna Fáil took a pragmatic decision to take the oath (they said that they were doing no more than 'signing a piece of paper'). In any case, the actions of the Cumann na nGaedhael government may well be regarded as a blessing in disguise for Fianna Fáil. By 1932 they were the largest part in Dáil Éireann and in a position to form a government. On 9 March 1932 the first change of government in the Irish Free State took place. Wikipedia provides all the important information as to what happened before, during and after this important transition.

In the election that propelled Fianna Fáil to power, the outgoing administration used what could be described as generally negative tactics; even attempting to foment a red scare which probably backfired. Also during the campaign The Irish Press newspaper was prosecuted; its editor convicted before a military tribunal "for publishing articles alleging Gardaí had mistreated the opponents (i.e. Anti-Treaty republicans) of the Irish Free State government." (see Wikipedia)

All this gave rise to a feeling that the outgoing government would attempt to thwart the democratic wishes of the Irish people. This was the 1930s after all, a time when coup d'état were enjoying a certain currency as the preferred means for thwarting the popular will. It is widely believed that many of the deputies who arrived at Dáil Éireann on 9 March, 1932 to take their seats, entered the chambers carrying guns concealed about their clothing.

However, the feared coup d'état did not take place. W.T. Cosgrave was determined to adhere to the principles of democracy that he had practised while in government. Likewise, the army, Garda Síochána and the civil service all accepted the change of government, despite the fact that they would now be taking orders from men who had been their enemies less than ten years previously. After a brief and uneventful meeting in the Dáil chamber, Éamon de Valera was appointed President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State by the Governor-General, James McNeill, who had come to Leinster House to make the appointment rather than require de Valera travel to the Viceregal Lodge, formerly a symbol of British rule. - see Wikipedia

Whether or not this outcome was solely due to wise and far-sighted leadership of W.T. Cosgrave, or whether a secret deal was struck, history does not seem to record. But given the comparatively seamless transition, it seems entirely likely that something of the sort did take place. It would be strange if it didn't.

For Cumann na nGaedhael (soon to become Fine Gael) this would be the beginning of sixteen years in opposition. It is possible however, that from their perspective this too amounted to a blessing in disguise. A bit like Margaret Thatcher's famous remark that her greatest legacy was New Labour, for Fine Gael also, their adversaries enjoyed the popular appeal and grassroots support that they lacked. The irony of this situation became all the more apparent when Fianna Fáil, by taking advantage of the abdication crisis, began a process that appeared to be implementing what Michael Collins had proposed in using the treaty as a stepping stone to freedom.

In the period of almost 80 years that ensued, Fine Gael returned to government on only six occasions (a total of about 20 years) and on no occasion did they manage to achieve re-election having served a period in government. They became accustomed to the role of official opposition and occasional seat-warmers, forming stop-gap administrations whenever Fianna Fáil were suffering from periodic bouts of internal division and/or public unpopularity.

The party's relationship with Fianna Fáil was best articulated by Alan Dukes in a speech in 1987, which came to be known as The Tallaght Strategy. As leader of Fine Gael he publicly undertook not to 'oppose for the sake of opposing', but to support Fianna Fáil administrations when they were taking actions his party deemed to be in the national interest:

When the Government is moving in the right direction, I will not oppose the central thrust of its policy. If it is going in the right direction, I do not believe that it should be deviated from its course, or tripped up on macro-economic issues. - see Wikipedia

Whether formally declared or not, this strategy was adhered to by Fine Gael in opposition right up to the present, including almost 14 years of Fianna Fáil government (1997-2011) that for a time coincided with a period of rapid economic growth, only to be followed very quickly by a disastrous economic downturn.

In 2008 the global financial crisis struck leaving the Irish state reeling. The unthinkable had happened. In the 2011 General Election the blame game resulted in Fianna Fáil being decimated at the polls. Fine Gael were returned to power but on this occasion it was far from being a blessing in disguise. No more than Lee Harvey Oswald, it wasn't like Fianna Fáil had acted alone.

Upon taking up office Fine Gael and their Labour coalition partners pretty much took up exactly where Fianna Fáil had left off; bowing to the dictates of the ECB-IMF bailouts and proceeding with unpopular bailouts of failed banking institutions. Of course all of this is at odds with an uncharacteristically colourful statement, made while in opposition by leading Fine Gael spokesperson and current government minister, Leo Varadkar, when he accused senior bankers of causing more damage to the state than the IRA, calling for their criminal prosecution. (see Irish Independent, 5/12/10 - Brace Yourself for Adams in the Aras)

It could be just anger at their own capitulation that is prompting the latest virulent outbursts from Fine Gael, which on a superficial level appear to be directed at Sinn Féin, but could have wider targets in sight. But further appraisal would suggest that there is more to it than that. Fine Gael today are in the position where the chalice they passed to Fianna Fáil in 1932 has been returned to them. It is now a poisoned one but they seem to feel that they have no option but to drink from it. They also expect the rest of the country to follow suit. Hence the none-too-subtle inference in Gay Mitchell's statement that loyalty and fealty to the state is an absolute requirement and not conditional upon the state upholding and vigorously defending the interests of the people.

Back in May the economist Morgan Kelly, gave his prediction, in a widely debated article, as to the likely outcome of the course that the present government is following:

Just as the Lenihan bailout destroyed Fianna Fáil, so the Noonan bankruptcy will destroy Fine Gael and Labour, leaving them as reviled and mistrusted as their predecessors. And that will leave Ireland in the interesting situation where the economic crisis has chewed up and spat out all of the State’s constitutional parties. The last election was reassuringly dull and predictable but the next, after the trauma and chaos of the bankruptcy, will be anything but. - see The Irish Times, 7/5/2011

Fine Gael might not even have the luxury of forming a stop-gap administration, until such time as Fianna Fáil is back on its feet and ready to resume the helm. One of the things that this presidential election campaign is strongly hinting at, is that Fianna Fáil's decline may be terminable. For what must be the first time ever, that party failed to field a candidate or even to nominate an independent. In fact mere debate on the issue unearthed deep divisions within the parliamentary party, regardless that their numbers these days are small enough to convene a gathering in a telephone booth.

Another notable outcome of the 2011 election was the electoral breakthrough experienced by Sinn Féin, certain left-wing parties and groupings, together with non-party independents. It is clear as day that a major political realignment is on the cards - one based on the notion of competing aspirations rather than the stage-managed punch and judy affairs served up by Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael over the years. While the political forces are currently fragmented, it is likely that they the pace of events will galvanise them into action. It is also quite likely that a central if not core objective of this new political force will be the repudiation of the ECB/IMF dictate. There will be no cloak with which to mask such a deep and fundamental division.

So Fine Gael are in a situation roughly similar to that which they found themselves in 1932: facing the possibility of being politically eclipsed; the probability that they are going to have to hand over the reigns of power; not at all certain that on this occasion they will be able to find a 'suitable' successor.

In desperation they are trying to rally forces by calling for a joyful rendition of God Save the Queen. But just as in the past, if that is really what they want on this occasion they are going to have to find some way to impose their will upon the country at large. In the world of today it is the institutions of finance capital that are King - faceless entities that have the power to make or break nations. There is nothing that even her majesty, the queen of England could do to stand in the way of such forces, even if she were minded too.

So whither Ireland and whither Fine Gael? That party has witnessed transitions before but how will they react to it on this occasion? Will they listen to and accept the democratic verdict of the Irish people or will they attempt to do what W.T. Cosgrave declined to do in 1932?

Copyright © Oscar Ó Dúgáin, 2011

Reference Material:

Belfast Telegraph, 23/9/11 - Gay Byrne attacks McGuinness in TV rant
The Irish Times, 23/9/11 - Only Norris can stop McGuinness becoming president
The Irish Times, 24/9/11 - Fine Gael attack McGuinness
RTÉ News - Áras race heats up as FG criticises McGuinness
Irish Independent, 5/12/10 - Brace Yourself for Adams in the Aras
Fianna Fáil website - Eamon de Valera. See also article on History of Fianna Fáil
Wikipedia - Irish General Election 1932. See also Oath of Allegiance, The Irish Press and Tallaght Strategy

The Political Fallout Arising from the Moriarty Tribunal

Arising out of the publication of the findings of The Moriarty Tribunal, there has been renewed calls for a ban on corporate donations. It's a subject that has been discussed previously on this blog - (The Funding of Political Parties). In my view the central issue remain the same - precisely what is such a ban supposed to achieve? As things stand, it all has the appearance of a solution in search of a problem. But perhaps it's not even as innocent as all that.

First of all there is the response of An Taoiseach and leader of Fine Gael, Enda Kenny. When asked if Michael Lowry (one of the key figures of the Moriarty Report) should resign, in view of what The Irish Times and other commentators consider to be "damning findings against him", Enda Kenny's answer was that "in an ideal world Mr Lowry would resign but this is not an ideal world." (Irish Times - 24/3/11).

It is also reported in the Irish Independent that he later clarified his position: 

I made the point that in an ideal world a deputy in this situation should resign. So I intend to speak in the debate myself when it comes up," he said. 

Mr Kenny was asked to clarify if he believed that Mr Lowry should resign but he declined to go further, saying only that his Government had referred the report to the the Revenue, the gardai and the DPP. 

He added: "Obviously, I made the point that Deputy Lowry, who is centrally involved in this Moriarty Report, where there are serious allegations, should go into the House and answer those charges," he said. - Irish Independent 26/3/11

Exactly what all this has to do with idealism only Enda Kenny can explain. In this day and age, it is generally expected of political leaders that they should be, first and foremost, masters of reality. They should be fearless in challenging perceptions, not least because the ideal state of affairs simply does not and cannot exist. Instead of taking the moral high ground - as he would have done in his previous role as the official chief critic of Fianna Fáil-led administrations - Enda Kenny has turned philosophical. In the process he has flunked his first major test (and not even a particularly arduous test) of leadership.

It is fortunate however that in Ireland, when politicians let it fall, there is always the good old Irish Times to pick up the baton. In an article by Noel Whelan, entitled Government must prioritise ban on corporate donations, a speech by former Fine Gael leader (and current Minister for Finance) Michael Noonan, from as far back as 2001 is quoted at length:

"ALL OVER the world, it is recognised that financial support from business to politicians is perceived by the public to have one purpose [namely] the securing of commercial advantage. Claims that such donations are made from disinterested motives are simply not believed. As the lurid tribunal scandals play out before our eyes, one thing is clear. We cannot restore politics until the perceived link between political contributions and public policy is broken." - Michael Noonan, February 9th, 2001. First press conference on succeeding to the leadership of Fine Gael. Quoted in The Irish Times, 26/3/11

Naturally The Irish Times is devastated by the stance adopted by the newly-elected government, in relation to the Moriarty Report and Michael Lowry in particular. They go on to cite several u-turns on the issue by Fine Gael since Michael Noonan's solemn declaration of 2001:

Sadly, it did not last long and Fine Gael quietly resumed accepting corporate donations. Fine Gael also returned to the defence of the party’s right to accept support from big businesses and, like Fianna Fáil, was dismissive of assertions that such support was tainted by the suggestion of influence or access. 

At last year’s MacGill Summer School, Fine Gael’s environment spokesman Phil Hogan said Fine Gael was opposed to the then government’s proposals to ban corporate donations, saying that his party made no apology and offered no favours in return for accepting them. In advance of last month’s election, however, Fine Gael again changed its policy on corporate donations – promising along with all other parties to introduce a ban. - The Irish Times, 26/3/11

Returning to Michael Noonan's speech however, I can kind of see why Fine Gael may have dropped that particular 'lofty goal' - and before entering government too, not after. They are the kind of words that fall flat almost as soon as they leave the mouth of whoever uttered them. Maybe he just forgot to add the parenthesis in the ideal world to the comments he made at the time.

He did speak of breaking the 'perceived link' between political contribution (financial presumably) and public policy. But what about the real link, regardless of how it is perceived? We know that Fine Gael doesn't like the real world very much, but it's the only one we have and it's the only one we are in any position to influence. Also, it's not just public policy that has been influenced and corrupted by cronyism and graft. It would appear that it has spread to the day-to-day functioning of government.

The Irish Times tells us that "Moriarty’s findings are reminder that links between business and politics must be broken." Unfortunately that's only ever likely to happen in the 'ideal world' of a Fine Gael leader. More unfortunately that world appears to be almost as muddied and confused as the one that The Irish Times lives in.

Politics and business are inseparable allies. Furthermore, the two are also inseparable from the fabric of the wider society in which they are rooted. Just because some people have made 'politics' their 'business' doesn't alter that fact either. Irish school-goers of a certain age will possibly remember the cartoon depiction in the history text books, of an elderly gentleman going over his last will and testament with his solicitor: "I leave the family farm to my eldest son and to my second son I bequeath my Dáil seat."

Political economy was a term popular in the 19th century to describe a certain preoccupation and field of study. Wikipedia describes it as the study of "production, buying, and selling, and their relations with law, custom, and government, as well as with the distribution of national income and wealth, including through the budget process." It is also said to have originated in moral philosophy; implying that the problems that were taxing the great minds of the time, could no longer be addressed by reference to morality alone.

One of those who employed the methods of political economy was Karl Marx. In his study of Capital he describes the relations that people enter into with each other, and with society in the course of procuring a livelihood:

This sphere that we are deserting, within whose boundaries the sale and purchase of labour-power goes on, is in fact a very Eden of the innate rights of man. There alone rule Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham. Freedom, because both buyer and seller of a commodity, say of labour-power, are constrained only by their own free will. They contract as free agents, and the agreement they come to, is but the form in which they give legal expression to their common will. Equality, because each enters into relation with the other, as with a simple owner of commodities, and they exchange equivalent for equivalent. Property, because each disposes only of what is his own. And Bentham, because each looks only to himself. The only force that brings them together and puts them in relation with each other, is the selfishness, the gain and the private interests of each. Each looks to himself only, and no one troubles himself about the rest, and just because they do so, do they all, in accordance with the pre-established harmony of things, or under the auspices of an all-shrewd providence, work together to their mutual advantage, for the common weal and in the interest of all. - Capital, vol I - The Buying and Selling of Labour Power.

Of course all this pre-supposes a 'pre-established harmony' and Marx goes on to explain, in considerable detail, why a society based on the capitalist mode of production invariably generates disharmony. Banning corporate donation to political parties will not eliminate this disharmony. It might even perpetuate it. Harmony and disharmony walk hand-in-hand and are themselves subject to the vagaries of change.

As a matter of fact, both businesses and political parties are corporate entities in the sense that both have separate legal identities (with all the privileges and obligations that that entails) to distinguish them from the individual members who make up the collective. The days are long gone when such entities could function as private and personal fiefdoms of a single, powerful individual - be it a benevolent patriarch or a ruthless godfather of crime.

Finally, to repeat a point I have made previously; allegations of corruption that have been investigated in recent years (and at considerable expense), by tribunals such as that headed by Moriarty did not involve corporate donations to political parties. The issue of contention was alleged under-the-counter payments to private individuals, using their position, office or influence to procure monetary reward. It is actually quite incorrect to refer to such payments as 'corporate' or to imply that they constitute 'donations'.

So while the current state of affairs is hardly ideal, one might suggest that it could be rectified by any combination of measures; among which could involve political parties enforcing discipline within their ranks.

Copyright © Oscar Ó Dúgáin, 2011

The Funding of Political Parties

Addressing the McGill Summer School in Co. Donegal, former Taoiseach Dr Garret Fitzgerald called for an urgent end to the funding of political parties by big business. Or so it was reported by certain sections of the media. I have not seen the text of his speech. His precise words are not reported by any of the media outlets that picked up on it (Irish Examiner, Newstalk). Other accounts would suggest that the issue was just one of many that he addressed in a fairly wide-ranging attack on political corruption in Ireland.

But lets assume the reported comments are an accurate reflection of the former Taoiseach's views on the matter. If he wants to come on this blog and correct any misapprehensions, he is more than welcome. "The risk of political corruption must be removed by stopping politicians from being funded by business," was how The Irish Examiner reported his speech.

Interestingly the debate has re-ignited in recent days with Fitzgerald's party colleague, Lucinda Creighton, apparently lashing out at her party leader for accepting a political donation. (Irish Independent, 21/7/10, Kenny furious as Creighton attacks party over donation). Also, if memory serves me correct, the Green Party have similar apprehensions about big business funding for political parties and raised the matter in the context of their programme for government with Fianna Fáil.

In the absence of any concrete proposals, it is hard to see how various people believe the political process should be funded. Maybe it shouldn't be funded? Maybe we've reached a stage where we can do without it? Somehow or other though, I don't think the people who are raising the issue at this time are anarchists. Is business supposed to be above politics? Or politics above business? Or are the two entirely separate realms that should never even come within proximity to each other, let alone overlap or collide?

The truth is that business and politics are not separate pursuits, activities in themselves, nor should they be. Of course for some people, politics is their business, their mainstay, their means of procuring a livelihood. We're not just talking about elected representatives here either. It is well known that these people are more often than not in a position akin to feudal barons, supporting a host of ancillary 'industries'.

The confusion arises when a lot of stuff that isn't really politics, passes for, and gets debated as politics. For politics to happen the primary question it must address is the relations that human beings enter into with each other in the course of procuring a livelihood. For society to work, the question has to be addressed in a manner that is all-encompassing, involving each and every social strata and anyone else who has an opinion. Any other debate, if it doesn't have this central objective in mind, is just waffle, a diversion possibly.

Idealistic types will always be victims of deception, duplicity and deceit in political and other affairs until they learn to discern the real interest behind each and every moral, religious, ethical question, crusade or call to action. Personally I'm not sure how the proposal (sketchy at best) to ban big business donations to political parties will address any issue. It could, in all possibility make matters an awful lot worse, harder to live with.

Take the issue of political corruption or sleaze. None of the high profile cases in recent times, resulting in 'tribunals of inquiry' that have lasted years, even decades, arose out of big business donations to political parties. For the most part they arose due to under-the-counter payments (brown paper envelopes) to individuals who were part of the political system, yet seemed to be operating outside of it. They use their positions in public life for personal gain and self-aggrandisement.

'Big Business' is an ambiguous term yet all businesses, big are small are required to operate in ways that are accountable, audit-able even. The same could or should be said for political parties. To my mind, banning big business donations to political parties will only exacerbate the problem, not remedy it. 'Business' big or small will continue to find ways (perhaps even more effective ways) to influence the political process.

Such a ban could end up suiting precisely those people that it is targeted against. Denied the right to influence the political process in the 'lawful way', they will instead seek out those within the political system whom they consider to be 'leaders and influencers'. They will win such people over, not through an open system of political patronage, but by financing their private lifestyles. It might even prove to be a whole lot cheaper than having to underwrite the entire political system.

If you don't believe that such a thing can be done, let me tell you - it has been done.

Copyright © Oscar Ó Dúgáin, 2010

George Lee: What Next?

It has been said that all political careers end in failure but some political careers last longer than that of George Lee. His decision to resign his Dáil seat and quit politics - a mere nine months after his landslide election on a wave of popular revulsion with the present government - was clearly unexpected. Then again, so too was his decision to throw his hat into the political arena in May 2009 and seek the Fine Gael nomination in the Dublin South by-election. What could have motivated his decision in each instance?

George Lee's foray into politics always had more the feel of a personal crusade than the usual huckstering. He was a man who wanted to shake up the system. He drew applause from all sides for his honesty, enthusiasm and integrity. He drew even more cheers when, during his maiden speech to the Dáil he referred to deputies who appeared to be sleeping! But making politicians look stupid is an easy game, especially when you're on the outside. Particularly when some of them just seem to be asking for it.

We may never know what really transpired over the last nine months that caused George Lee to throw in the towel. Some, especially his party colleagues have been quick to offer explanations nevertheless. "His ego wasn't satisfied by the reality of the job" is how one Dáil and party colleague described his predicament, a view confirmed by another who offered the somewhat softer assessment: "I think he probably missed the immediate impact of the 20-second soundbite on TV, that it's not the same when you're in politics."

So people are taking sides based on whether George Lee was right or wrong to resign. No one is asking if he was right or wrong to enter Leinster House politics in the first place. George Lee sought election because he wanted to contribute to the efforts to find a solution to the country's present economic difficulties. He seemed to think that Dáil Éireann was the platform from which he could sell an alternative approach to the Irish electorate and public. He resigned a mere nine months later because, he says, he "had virtually no influence or input into shaping Fine Gael’s economic policies at this most critical time".

The point that appears to be missed - by George Lee, but also by his champions and his critics - is that Dáil Éireann isn't really a forum where policy (economic or otherwise) is formulated or shaped. The primary function of the Dáil is to enact legislation to give effect to policies that are usually formulated elsewhere. It also facilitates the formation of a govenment, which comprises a Taoiseach and his cabinet, and keeps a watching brief on its performance. The role is akin to that of a kingmaker with no real executive function. That power lies elsewhere.

Ireland's system of governance falls into the parliamentary tradition. Other countries have what is sometimes referred to as an 'executive presidency'. The USA is one such example and usually cited as the most clear-cut, since they have complete separation of the executive and legislative functions of government. The judicial system is also separate but I think that that is the case in almost all countries that have attained a certain level of political development - correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course identifying two main trends (the parliamentary and executive presidency) does not exclude the possibility of certain national peculiarities and traits arising out of a country's history and traditions. Some countries retain vestiges of their history in the form of 'constitutional monarchy' for instance. And of course the Irish system is also steeped in history. Dáil Éireann is but one example of this.

Dáil is an Irish term that has a number of meanings. The English translation usually given is that of a 'meeting' or 'assembly' but it can also be used simply to convey a sense of togetherness (which some might interpret as cronyism) or it might even refer to an 'allocation, distribution or allotment'. The cynic would say that this is because the Dáil is where people meet to allocate sinecures and cushy jobs but another explanation is possible. The Dáil itself is not parliament but simply one tier of an tOireachtas which translates as 'deliberative assembly' in Ó Dónaill's Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla. Thus it meets to consider, but does not actually formulate policy.

Of course An tOireachtas is also the name of an annual festival of Irish language, art and culture that takes place. It is not affiliated to the legislative assembly, but not unlike its political cousin, it could be described as a carnival of sorts.

A study of the orgins of 'parliament' is also instructive in terms of understanding it's function. The terms itself derives from the French word parlement, meaning discussion, from the verb parler - to speak. It might be inferred from this that parliament therefore is nothing more than a talking shop, which is what it has become to many, but this was not the original intention.

Typically what would happen is that The King would summon parliament to listen to what his subjects had to say. The King would listen but not necessarily speak or address any of the concerns raised there and then. More likely, when he had heard enough, he would adjourn to deliberate, either in private, or among his close inner circle. (Many countries still retain The Privy Council by the way). This also was how The King retained his power - by listening but not engaging in discussion he retained exclusive power to act. A strategy of keeping people guessing if you like.

If you've ever been part of a collective decision making process, you'll probably have twigged that the best way to push through an agenda is to ignore every objection, for as long as possible, until such time as it goes away or becomes unbearable. But unlike The King who summoned the original parliaments, who listened but didn't speak, modern day parliamentarians might be accused of speaking endlessly but never really listening!

Over time, in any case, this became an ineffective system of governance and in various countries, kings were either deposed or had their power drastically curtailed. Parliament therefore became a check on royalist absolutism. Even in countries like the USA, which didn't suffer these feudal trappings, it was still felt necessary to have a system of checks in place, so that The President didn't become an elected king.

Nowadays, when royalist absolutism has been all but consigned to the dustbin of history (except perhaps for one or two places) what should be the role of parliament? And not just parliament because democracy is supposed to mean 'government of the people, by the people, for the people'. That's a far cry from 'government of the people, by corrupt but elected cronies, for the purpose of who knows what?'

In the fallout from the resignation of George Lee, some have suggested that it's time for the formation of a new political force on the Irish landscape. While this would certainly be an interesting development, I just hope that those who might be contemplating such a move have better luck, and more acumen than George Lee. It's not enough to simply want to make a difference - knowing how and where this can be done is essential in the heel of the hunt.

Perhaps George Lee would have done better if he had joined Fianna Fáil?

Copyright © Oscar Ó Dúgáin, 2010

NAMA and the Demise of the Political Class

Newspaper reports suggest that embattled Finance Minister, Brian Lenihan came out fighting in the past week, strongly defending his proposed National Assets Management Agency (NAMA) legislation and criticising opposition party, Fine Gael's alternative proposals.

In comments attributed to him he suggested that Fine Gael's policy on NAMA could have "catastrophic consequences for both the banks and the State ." - Irish Times, Thursday, August 27, 2009. (My italics). Exactly what those catastrophic consequences might be hasn't been spelt out. Nevertheless, the comments themselves are at least revealing about the current political climate.

Most people in Ireland would probably react to a statement like that along the lines of: 'So the consequences will be catastrophic for the banks and the state, but the rest of us should be alright, right?' The rest of us being those whose jobs, careers, prospects or livelihoods aren't directly connected with the industries of banking or government!

Of course there are those who will argue that we're all dependent in some way on banking or on government, whether as tax payers, mortgage holders, debtors etc but it is an argument that is specious at best. All of us depend on the agricultural sector for the food we put in our mouths (and everyone eats don't they?) but when is the last time you heard of farmers seriously holding the whole country to ransom? I mean to the point of threatening to sink us all?

The mystery that needs untangling is why nobody seems able, or willing to put aside sectional differences, to come forward with a plan that ensures the national survival of the Irish people as a whole, not just those whose jobs are based on banking or government. In other words all of us, including them, but also - the rest of us. I say this because, on the face of it at least, the way the issues stands now, it really does seem to come down to a matter of national survival.

I'm not suggesting that those in political and governing circles don't 'care' the nation's interests. Certainly they would have a sense of the national interest as everyone does. The problem is that, for most people (all of us if we are to be honest), defining the national interest invariably begins by looking at it in relation to one's own immediate interests followed by the interests of your closest circles.

The banks believe that if they go down, we'll all go down with them and they seem to have been successful in converting the Government to this view. But there are others who disagree. David McWilliams, one of the first advocates and possible author of the bank guarantee scheme, has since come out against NAMA:

"The banks are now the biggest liability we have and keeping them alive at all costs - which was, on balance, the right thing to do a few months ago - is beginning to look like the least beneficial route. ...The banks are still giving the State the two fingers. Having both the NAMA and the guarantee gives absolutely no incentive for the banks to get their house in order." - Banks giving us two fingers don’t deserve State bailout

Someone else who threw his hat into the ring recently is former Taoiseach, Garret FitzGerald. In fact he came out against his own party's proposals in an article entitled Government must not fall until crucial measures implemented - Irish Times Saturday, August 29, 2009.

"Responsible opposition is vital if the State is to be kept out of the IMF’s hands" he chides before warning:

"No worse fate could befall an opposition than to precipitate themselves into government by defeating measures, the rejection of which could throw our State into the hands of the IMF."

In any case:

"One can readily imagine the relief many in government might feel at finding themselves freed of their responsibilities in circumstances that could then provide them with an unexpectedly good chance of returning to power if their successors failed to resolve the situation."

For Garret FitzGerald the issues seem to boil down to a vague sense of national pride muddled with the survival of the political establishment to which he belongs, and which almost seem to represent a class of its own these days.

If the IMF do become involved, they will seek to implement very drastic measures, affecting every aspect of economic activity and social life in the country. Furthermore, they are far enough removed not to care too much about you and me. You only have to look to other countries to see what they are capable of. Many will face ruin, some in terms of their actual livelihoods, others in terms of their political careers. The latter however are the ones with the connections so they'll probably come out it all a lot better than most.

Garret FitzGerald sounds like the voice of a section of the Irish political class, whose main concern is: 'Either we implement the measures demanded or some outsiders will come in and do it for us, casting us aside in the process'. That would be humiliating, but humiliating for whom and is this type of humiliation really the worst of what is in store?

The argument seems to be that our own, homegrown political class would be more caring and protective than the IMF, that they would represent the best shelter in the present storm but where is the evidence for this? What can they do to save us, assuming that they are motivated by something purer than simply trying to save themselves?

At moments of crisis thoughts turn to survival but is it the survival of the entire nation or merely the political survival of a small few? If it is the case that the political class are desperately trying to cobble together a strategy to save themselves, one feels nevertheless that it's already too little, too late. The stakes have become much bigger.

The economic base, upon which the political foundation rests, has become seriously eroded in a very short space of time. Should the political class find a way to harmonise their tune to the IMF's hymn sheet, this in all probability will not reverse, but actually accelerate the trend towards national decline and ultimate extinction. It's like a servant trying to serve two masters. It's bound to end in tragedy.

This could be what is meant by "catastrophic consequences for both the banks and the State" in the comments attributed to Brian Lenihan.

But the question still remains - and what about the rest of us?

Copyright © Oscar Ó Dúgáin, 2009