Democracy? Y’know [shrug].

There’s a remarkable article by Tom McGurk in the Sunday Business Post this last weekend – ah, the SBP, it’s a treasure trove, and no mistake. Let us consider his thesis. Ivor Callely is a failed politician in the Seanad. Therefore the Irish party political system is a failed system and therefore the party system is failed and therefore – we must short-circuit it in some way. With me so far?

Granted it goes into a little more detail than that.

Now few of us would demur from the notion that Callely is no poster boy for Irish politics. There are those who would argue that the Seanad is in a way probably the best way to transition him from the polity – I joke, but only a little.

But in fairness to McGurk he’s far from incorrect in the following:

The Callely episode is not only about our politicians using the political system like some sort of private pension scheme – it is also about the presumptions that political office brings: an arrogant sense of entitlement and, above all, a bewildering sense of indifference to the chaos caused.

Perhaps most instructive of all is the fact that Callely is in the Oireachtas in the first place.

He is a failed politician -more accurately, a politician rejected by the electorate, who landed in the Senate courtesy of the taoiseach’s gift of 11 seats.

And like McGurk I’d agree that that’s a terrible waste of a constitutional measure that could be used much more effectively. And I’d also agree with McGurk when he argues that:

Recently, Enda Kenny spoke about abolishing the Senate, but I suspect that, like most things Kenny says, this was for the ripple effect.

Given that the Senate belongs to – and is a creation of – the citizens who voted for it in their Constitution, what right has the political class to abolish it?

Ironically, there are actually very good reasons for maintaining the Senate – and, just as importantly, the taoiseach’s gift of 11 seats.

Although I have the sense of the wheels slipping off the road when he continues…

I would go so far as to suggest that the Senate could yet emerge as the key to the extensive and radical change our political culture is now crying out for.

McGurk correctly notes that Senators such as Norris and Ross have been conspicuous by their general excellence. However he then makes what might be an error of analysis.

There is clear evidence that independent, single-minded members of the Senate can play, and have played, a significant part in our political life. The roles played by people like Shane Ross and David Norris stand out in significant contrast to most senatorial party hacks, who are there essentially for ‘‘walk on’’ voting parts.

Freed of party restrictions, people like Ross and Norris have made a significant contribution to our political life.

Well, yes. But one wonders if it’s simply down to being non party political. Or rather is it that they have – distinguished Seanad careers aside – been in opposition. Not for them the necessary and messy compromises that come with government. And in truth, let’s note that Callely has not been involved in government since he was dismissed as a junior minister which long predated his arrival in the Seanad. So are we really comparing like with like. Yes, it was a terrible waste to use some of the 11 appointees in the way that they were used but it may in truth tell us much less about the Irish political system other than that some people will use whatever means are available to – as McGurk puts it ‘make it up as they go along’.

But it’s the following where we see a really curious argument being developed – at least curious to my mind.

Our political class is in crisis as never before, and there is a significant argument that the party system with which we have operated, more or less since the creation of the state, is simply inadequate to our needs now. Can we go on forever forming governments, not with the best talent available, but with what the vagaries of the party system throw up?

But what is the alternative?

Of course, our representatives are all democratically elected, but before they even get a nomination, they have to go through the party wringer, where all sorts of considerations matter, and where many of them are quite unknown to the general public.

And…

The party system, in many ways, strangles the democratic option before a vote is cast.

Hmmm… well, it’s not as if independents never get elected, although the current situation of an independent Minister of Health – again I joke, but only slightly, doesn’t exactly give us the best possible example of the potential of this.

Even worse, given the jungle that is our party political culture, many people of great ability who might like to contribute politically would never enter into it.

But. But… there are reasons why parties have developed and that is because they operate as vehicles by which like minded people can coalesce around similar ideological and/or philosophical stances and generate programmes which they can then bring to the electorate and gain acceptance (or is the term ‘acquiesce’?). Then, and this is the important bit, one can to a greater or lesser degree hold those who are elected to those programmes. One has a sense of what they were elected to do. One even, and this is tenuous sometimes, has a sense of a contract or compact with them. Now, of course, life isn’t pure and there’s always some element of slippage. And that too is to a greater or lesser extent. But, at least when one has the option of electing a known individual one can feel some sense of traction, of ownership and ultimately of retribution. Does it work? Imperfectly, of course. Again, this is an entropic universe. It never pays to have too inflated an expectation of anything. But, it’s the best we’ve got so far.

And I have a counter-argument as it happens to this notion that there are massive untapped resources out there, which is that people tend to do more or less what they want to do given their time constraints in such matters, and that this unsung horde of business people (and look below to see that business is certainly on McGurk’s mind) who supposedly are waiting, just waiting to become politicians probably have better things to be doing with their time. And in truth it’s far from unknown for business people to have made it into politics. The track record, as with all these things, remains mixed.

Then, further down the line, when a Taoiseach is selecting ministers for his cabinet, not only is he reduced to selecting from whoever is elected, but whether they are up to the job is frequently irrelevant – again due to the political culture.

And he continues:

Could you imagine any major international business selecting its chief executive on the basis that he came from Cork, or that he represented an area where, last time out, the voting performance was poor, or that his father was a great fellow?

Except one hopes that in a democratic system that those going forward for election will have at least a nominal level of general expertise. But even if they didn’t, then it’s up to the voters to exercise at least some level of judgement.

Even in the formation of governments, what might be best for the country will always come second to what might be best for the party.

No wonder that, down the years, we have ended up with a long list of ministerial dummies, often people whose ability one would hardly trust with the running of an average corner shop. ‘‘They are democratically elected’’ is the cry, but why must the political classes enjoy their monopoly on the reins of power?

Well, a number of answers spring to mind, most pressing of which is that the people have the right to be wrong, and that this decision should rest with the people. But again, see above. Even to frame it in terms of the ‘political classes’ is such a curiosity as to seem willfully ignorant of how political power operates in societies like our own. Even were a Taoiseach able to appoint the entire cabinet that too would still rest on levels of patronage to some degree or other. The choice would operate not from some Platonic blank slate but instead would be informed by… ideology/philosophy, etc, etc. And then, and here again is the crucial bit, there would be no serious traction by the electorate on those choices subsequently unless those chosen put themselves forward for election.

And here again is the yearning for the quick fix, the simple solution, the bypassing of previous structures… indeed McGurk uses that latter term.

Is there no space in the system for individuals of singular ability who can bypass the jungle that is the party system, and then contribute in government?

Well. That’s got to be rhetorical, there is as he’s already noted. But it’s hard to tell whether he means that there should be more than the 11, or if this measure would be restricted to them.

Could the only consolation from this whole sorry affair be that the taoiseach’s gift might be included in a significant new debate about the radical changes that our political system needs?

If we’re staying with the 11 fair enough. Although I’d be very leery about a cabinet that was composed of 11 nominees. Again, it’s the small matter of democracy. And part of ours is a Constitution that – in fairness – has served us reasonably well and which has a limit on more than 2 nominees being elected to the Cabinet. Now, perhaps in this ‘discussion’ McGurk champions the endpoint will be a referendum on changing that provision, but somehow I think not.

Still, let’s extend this a little further. Why should the Taoiseach be an elected party politician? All the issues he raises hold precisely true for potential and actual Taoisigh. But I suspect none of us, him included, would be too keen on an appointed Taoiseach. So presumably whatever candidate, good bad or indifferent for that role would be expected to have some democratic legitimation. Is he then arguing for an essentially Presidential style of politics to be introduced to this polity? If so is it demonstrably clear that this has been more or less successful in other polities?

I’ve no particular problem with external expertise being brought in in limited measure – two sounds grand, I’d live with a few more perhaps, but I don’t believe it’s the solution to everything. Indeed it seems to me that the most pressing measures required in our political life – at least at the Callely level – are actually the ones that are most easy to implement. Transparent regulation as regards expenses. That’d be a good place to start – and if nothing else at least the crisis has brought that.

For anything beyond that we’re talking about somewhat more complicated processes. For example McGurk appears to be arguing that although the Taoiseach should be able to nominate individuals to the Seanad the nature of those individuals should be in some way constrained beyond the current situation. How does that work in practice? No party politicians? Well, say for example, that an effective Minister of Finance – generally acknowledged by the great and the good as the right woman or man for the job – was unsuccessful in returning to the Dáil at an election. Would McGurk support her or his nomination by the Taoiseach, and if so what are the criteria for doing so?

Look, sure McGurk is shooting the breeze, riffing off the ‘hapless’ Ivor, but one wishes it was a bit more…formed.

And perhaps the most telling sentence is the following…

They also look with considerable alarm at the alternative to this lot.

Do they really? The polls would seem to suggest otherwise with both Labour and Fine Gael on respectively record and respectable levels of support. Perhaps that’s the real problem for McGurk.