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

Morning Ireland, Morning After

An Taoiseach, Brian Cowen described aspersions cast about his condition and state of mind (somewhere between drunk and hungover) during his Morning Ireland interview of 14th September as 'a new low in Irish politics'. It may be low but it's not entirely new. It is though revealing about the relationship between the media and political establishments, how and why 'news' gets reported.

Few would disagree that Brian Cowen has a face for radio but what was probably not taken into consideration, until now, is that he doesn't always possess a voice that carries well over the airwaves. Actually it all brings to mind an admission made a few years ago by former TD Liz O'Donnell that she often gave radio interviews in her bra and undies. But that's Liz O'Donnell. She is blonde after all (or so it says on the bottle) and she did wait until she had left politics before making the admission. Somehow I feel that a similar admission by Brian Cowen would leave the country with no choice but to demand his removal from office, if not from politics altogether.

It is worth noting that not all sections of the media have jumped on the judgmental bandwagon. Some have simply limited themselves to straight-forward reporting of facts. Writing in the Irish Independent, Fiach Kelly suggested:

It was a night typical of any party gathering, enjoyed by TDs, senators and assembled journalists. At the time, no one could have foreseen the political storm that would envelop the Taoiseach in what would become one of the most damaging episodes of his political career.

An explanation for the reticence might be gleamed from another Irish Independent report, published just prior to the Galway event, this time by John Drennan:

The stage is set for a dramatic showdown between the Cowen and Lenihan factions at the much-anticipated Fianna Fail parliamentary party think-in at the Ardilaun Hotel in Galway next week.

After a summer of feverish intrigue the two factions within the party will confront each other for the first time in three months.

Was Brian Cowen's apparent blunder merely the culmination of such intrigue, which happens all the time and passes for 'politics' with some people. If it is the case that there is in-fighting within Fianna Fáil between the Cowen and Lenihan camps, it is interesting to speculate what bearing it could have had on another public gaffe that broke, at almost exactly the same time, but this time concerning the Finance Minister's brother, Conor Lenihan. It seems that the country's Minister for Science was planning to perform duties at the launch of a book claiming to 'debunk' Darwinian evolution.

But the biggest hurdle for the Lenihan camp, asuming such exists, is that their leadership contender is currently battling with cancer. It will of course be remembered that the manner in which this story was revealed, back in December of last year, caused consternation among Fianna Fáil supporters, or some of them at any rate. Complaints were even made against TV station that broke the story. It went all the way to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland which ruled that it was factual and accurate. There is of course still the unanswered question of who leaked the information in the first place!

The fallout following the Galway event has produced claims and counter-claim and numerous reports about what was said, how much drink was taken, etc. On the other hand, news has been somewhat sparse on the nature and purpose of the event itself - i.e. a Fianna Fáil party gathering, billed as a 'think-in' which one might have expected to produce some kind of assessment of the state of the country, the economy and how the biggest political party in the state propose to address the problems.

I actually had to go to the Fianna Fáil website to get the text of An Taoiseach's speech. In summary, he outlines some factors that he thinks will benefit Irish economic fortunes in the medium to long-term. He mentions that "there is more to this country than Anglo-Irish Bank - terrible burden though that is", from which one could conclude that the government has no plan to change from it's present stance in relation to this issue. He points to investments in infrastructure that the government is continuing to make and identifies export-led growth and attracting foreign direct investment as key to recovery. However all this is underpinned by what is considered the main imperative at the present time - stabilising of public finances, a euphemism for cutbacks.

Besides accusations of drunkeness directed at Brian Cowen the term 'uninspiring' was also used to characterise his Galway performance. There may be more credence to this view. One feels however that Brian Cowen is not alone in that regard and isn't solely to blame.

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

Towards a United Ireland

Response to an article by Niall Gormley (Let's Make the Unionists an Offer) published in The Northside People (7 February, 2007).

Niall Gormley is drawing incorrect conclusions, albeit from certain correct premises in his piece of 7th February ('Let’s Make the Unionists an Offer'). He talks about promising that ‘a functioning Northern Ireland would never be dismantled’ in order to re-assure unionists. But when is the last time Northern Ireland functioned? Why does it still fail to function eight years on from the Good Friday Agreement? And is it simply a matter or re-assuring unionists? What about those who dissent from the unionist agenda? Are they to be stripped of their political rights and deprived of their voice - again?

As a matter of fact it can be observed that unionists are beginning to question the long-term viability of a Northern Ireland entity particularly in view of the sustained electoral growth of Sinn Fein. Consequently Ian Paisley Jnr speaks not against a united Ireland per se but ‘the type of united Ireland that republicans envisage’? Listen carefully the next time you hear him being interviewed.

Furthermore even so-called ‘hard line’ elements of unionism (Willie McCrea for example) in their public comments are not expressing opposition to the changes that are in the pipeline. Rather they are stating a view that they would like to see changes deferred for a political generation. Maybe it’s all just a ruse but maybe it really is the beginning of a sea-change.

Surely it is no longer sabre-rattling to suggest that Northern Ireland is a failed political entity. This has been observed in practice at least since the time of the Civil Rights Movement but also in more recent times following on from the IRA ceasefires, the Good Friday Agreement and now IRA decommissioning.

Of course Niall Gormley is right when he says that the formulation centred around ‘united Ireland’ is somewhat vague. As a matter of fact for years the standard old battle-cry used to be more along the lines of a ‘united, independent, sovereign, 32 county, maybe socialist (depending on your view) but definitely republic’. This rendition has been quietly dropped in recent years, probably because it irks certain people with a certain disposition to speak in this way. When cold war paranoia operated across the globe there was a fear (perhaps genuinely held) that Ireland could become Britain’s Cuba if the wrong sort of people ever gained too much influence.

Today the task devolves to the Irish and British governments (calling on the support of the international community where necessary) to manage the transition towards a political re-unification on the island of Ireland that will best accommodate all sections of Irish people. This accommodation will of course be bound by the limits of what is practical and reasonable in the prevailing circumstances. But it must always be open to subsequent review. This is in line with democratic principle.

It only serves to debase politics (by negating the role of the individual) if the problem of reaching a settlement is posed in terms of cynical political horse-trading, carving out political fiefdoms etc, etc.

11th February, 2007

Copyright © Oscar Ó Dúgáin, 2007

On the Likelihood of a Breakthrough in the Northern Ireland Peace Process

Efforts to broker agreement among political parties in the North are stumbling inexorably towards collapse and all things considered, this need not necessarily be the worst possible outcome.

In truth any agreement that is hammered out would only serve, at the present time, to paper over cracks. Most likely it would amount to a re-run of the previous occasion when the Assembly and Executive was functioning. Constant injections of political support from one or other or both of the two government would be required to keep the it all propped up. The main political forces on the nationalist side see in it anyway merely a stepping stone towards some form of 'united Ireland' - precisely what form deliberately being left vague for the time being. But equally unionist have reached a point where they just cannot bring themselves to do business with Sinn Féin and this clouds their entire political agenda. Paradoxically this is also the reason why their political interests would now best be served within an all-Ireland framework. At least within such a framework they could create a buffer between themselves and republicans. This option is no longer easily available within a six-county or ‘Northern Ireland’ context.

The late Charles Haughey controversially described Northern Ireland as a ‘failed political entity‘. He was probably only echoing the warning of a unionist leader of an earlier era, the Dubliner, Edward Carson who anticipated such an outcome when he turned down overtures to become Prime Minister when Northern Ireland was created. Partition was as much a matter of historical compromise for unionism as it was for Irish nationalism. Exactly where unionist thinking lies isn't always easy to gauge but it's surely apparent to them that their most likely (and reliable) allies in reducing the role and marginalising the influence of Sinn Féin lie across the border and not across the sea. Certainly this is the impression one gets from the ease with which unionist politicians engage and exchange banter with their southern counterparts - Ian Paisley Jnr recent appearance on RTÉ’s Questions and Answers for example.

With strand one of the Good Friday Agreement being put on ice, the public spotlight moving away from the North and relieved of the pressure to reach a settlement, political leaders of the two main traditions will be able to properly engage in dialogue with their respective constituencies on issues like policing, power-sharing etc. In the meantime an opportunity will be opened up to explore other areas of the Good Friday Agreement which have not to date received the same level of (public) attention - what the agreement itself refers to as the ‘totality of relationships among the peoples of these islands’ for example. It is possible that by developing new initiatives in these areas, a momentum could be created to return to the question of government in Northern Ireland at a later date. However it may also prove to be the case that the time for this has passed for reasons already outlined. Cross-border co-operation envisaged in strand two of the agreement may end up superseding those aspects of the agreement outlined in strand one.

The absence of democratic institutions governing Northern Ireland will not of itself lead to a descent back into the violence and anarchy of the past but neither can this be ruled out. Certain measures could be taken now in anticipation of such a scenario. This could entail the Irish government seeking a binding commitment that any future peace-keeping intervention in the North would have an Irish input and dimension. The Irish defence forces could assume responsibilities in areas and communities of the north where their presence would be welcomed over the presence of a British occupying power which would only serve to inflame.

23rd January, 2007

A version of this post was published as a 'Letter to the Editor' in the Irish Examiner newspaper of 31st January, 2007.

Copyright © Oscar Ó Dúgáin, 2007

Power Sharing and the Good Friday Agreement

The northern political parties have been given until November to resolve their differences in the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. It would appear that the prospects for success are being deliberately down-played so as not to raise public hopes too high and thereby place inordinate pressure on the talks participants.

The DUP are making the issue of republican criminality a sticking point. They see this as the main obstacle in the way of government in Northern Ireland. Irrespective of the validity of their concerns, others will see their stance as somewhat akin to 'cutting off the nose to spite the face'. Why hand terrorists and criminals the veto on progress? But also, it could perhaps be discerned from comments made by Martin McGuinness at the most recent Sinn Féin Ard Fheis that his party too is equally prepared to take a hard-nosed approach:

"... even if it [i.e. the Good Friday Agreement] falls we are confident that ... its substance has been secured as the minimal threshold for anything that might replace or supersede it."

So the question is does the Good Friday Agreement remain a viable framework for a peace settlement or is it in need of serious overhaul? I would suggest that the failure of the Good Friday Agreement to date to provide for democratic institutions in Northern Ireland, as set out in Strand One of the agreement, represents not so much the failure of politics. Rather this failure is the outcome of the type of politics which Strand One seeks to impose.

There is in fact an inherent flaw in the Good Friday Agreement, though it could be argued that it was a necessary flaw to ensure that some form of agreement was reached way back in 1998. At the time of its negotiation the key challenge was to hasten an end to armed conflict, civil and sectarian strife. And it can be said that the Agreement has made considerable progress in this direction. The failure has been in the area of establishing democratic government in Northern Ireland. My own view is that as long as those measures set out in the Good Friday Agreement which basically seek to institutionalise division - nationalist vs. unionist - act as the prerequisite for agreement, stalemate will be inevitable. This may or may not be what the two governments have in mind in their recent joint statement where they mention that: "consideration could be given to proposals for the implementation of the Agreement, including changes to Strands 1 to 3 in the context of a commitment by all involved to participate in a power-sharing Executive".

Is it only in Ireland that the cart is continually put before the horse? Instead of political divisions and party allegiances emerging organically out of political life these become a pre-condition for political life itself! Similarly instead of democratic politics being the mechanism to resolve fundamental differences the emphasis is placed on resolving fundamental differences before democratic politics can be instituted!

I would suggest a few simple amendments to the existing Good Friday Agreement which could enable formation of government in Northern Ireland whilst also safeguarding commitments to cross-community co-operation. Firstly the notion of Assembly members registering a designation of identity (nationalist, unionist or other) should be scrapped. Obviously political allegiances would continue to play a role but they would have no formal sanction. Secondly the appointment of First Minister, Deputy First Minister and other official positions should be by the direct election of the assembly as a whole. This could be by simple majority, or weighted majority if such a safeguard was deemed necessary, but again without regard to political designation. This would enable deputies to take office solely on the basis of their mandates and not on the basis of having 'sold out', or having 'done a deal with the enemy'.

Parties and political allegiances are historical transients by nature. We should remember the advice of US president and constitution-maker, James Madison, handed down almost 220 years ago: "In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce".

10th April, 2006

A version of this post was published as a 'Letter to the Editor' in the Irish Examiner newspaper of 14th April, 2006.

Copyright © Oscar Ó Dúgáin, 2006

Disarmament and the Good Friday Agreement. On recent announcements by the IRA, verified by the De Chastelain Commission on September 26, 2005

In all of the reporting, commentary and analysis I've encountered so far on the recent IRA announcement a lot of the focus has been on the (apparently) luke-warm, less-than-ecstatic response from unionist politicians and the DUP in particular. It is surprising therefore that as yet no-one seems to have drawn the obvious conclusion. One wonders even, if this could be deliberate?

What has been remarkable about the reaction of unionism and the DUP is not their lack of embrace for the IRA's historic initiative. Rather it is the fact that they did not respond to it in some kind of triumphalist fashion, which obviously would have been disastrous had they chosen that course.

Think about it. Unionism and the DUP's arch-enemy, the IRA, have completely and unconditionally disarmed (according to General de Chastelain), having earlier declared an end to their military campaign. But no-one from the unionist camp is hailing it as a victory of any sort. There has been no flag-waving, insults, provocations or even any kind of one-upmanship from any quarter. In this sense it has to be said that the reaction has been generally quite respectful, and therefore positive.

I believe that this is firstly because unionism and the DUP represent a constituency of people who are fundamentally decent and don't want to re-open new wounds now that old wounds have a chance to heal.

Secondly it confirms that the DUP are on board in this new departure even though they have reservations and, officially at least, remain opposed to the Good Friday Agreement. It is to be expected that if they are to play a role in facilitating acceptance within their political constituency for the new dispensation that is on offer, they will want to do so on their own terms.

It has to be remembered that DUP leader, Ian Paisley, is actually viewed with suspicion within sections of unionism (those usually labelled 'loyalists') stemming back to the days of unionist protests against the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. For reasons that I must confess are beyond my comprehension, it is perceived by some that he somehow betrayed these sections, sold out. Recent disturbances in loyalist communities may even be a reflection of this, were it the case for example, that word somehow filtered through that a big development was about to take place. But let's not speculate on people's motivations.

I think it is worth saying that there would be no point in any community or individual making triumphalist noises as a sad and terrible chapter closes. Because still one feels that the full story has yet to be told. For my own part, I strongly suspect that when it is told, the picture it will reveal will be one in which everyone of us, without exception, Irish and British, was the victim of duplicity, cunning and manipulation. In short the joke was on us all, but what a pity that it had to be such a tasteless one.

I also believe that the sceptics and dissidents (and there are some of these in the nationalist/republican camp too) to this new departure should be accorded the necessary breathing-space, and whatever time is necessary, to absorb the significance of these developments. In return they must agree not to use this breathing space to physically threaten or attack anyone. Or indeed to prepare for such attacks when circumstances might change in the future. There can be no such thing as 'an acceptable level of violence'.

Also the issue of 'allowing people time to absorb' should not be used as an excuse to hold up progress towards normalisation of civil life that continues to make strides despite periodic setbacks. On this latter question however, I think this can only be accomplished through the vigilance and conscious activity of the population as a whole, not through measures implemented 'from above'.

There is one issue that the sceptics have been raising on which one feels they may have a point. That is the lack of transparency, accountability and consultation in verifying the IRA's decommissioning. It has lead some to cast doubt on whether they really have 'gone away'. It can only be hoped that in the fullness of time these people will accept that, on this occasion, one wrong has managed to cancel out some previous wrongs, without for one moment denying that these wrongs should never have been committed in the first place.

I would go further and argue that it is the lack of transparency and accountability in how politics really works in the society that first fuelled the conflict, then sustained it over 30 years.

29th September, 2005

Versions of this post were published as 'Letters to the Editor' in the Irish Examiner newspaper of 3rd October, 2005, Village Magazine (Issue 54, 6-12 October, 2005) and Daily Ireland newspaper of 8th October, 2005.

Copyright © Oscar Ó Dúgáin, 2005