Electoral etiquette on the Irish Left October 9, 2013
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.trackback
On foot of the proposed European Election run of Brid Smith of PBPA in Dublin, the question arises what should election etiquette on the left be? We’ve had a robust discussion elsewhere, but it might be useful to look at this in more abstract terms rather than looking at examples of past, present or future behaviour. So interesting to consider a number of questions, should parties not run candidates when other left parties already have TDs or MEPs in situ? What is the situation where there are no incumbents, what of local elections? And what principles underpin or should underpin this? Is it worth attempting to work out agreements of principle, or simple electoral agreements? Should these be de facto or formalised and so on?
The Cedar Lounge Revolution 
Is that not a negation of the voters’ right to choose?
Does that mean the WP or CPI can never stand where there’s a sitting SP or SWP figure?
As well as parties, would the etiquette extend to ‘Left’ Independents?
And who decides who is Left enough?
LikeLike
Perhaps some sort of “alliance” which would, eh, unite the left, shall we say.
LikeLike
The notion of an electoral alliance on an anti-austerity basis sounds good in theory. But in practice it only works where participants are prepared to act in unity around common campaigns, agreed slates and demands. This is not to say that participants should cease to build their own groups (or stand their own candidates): why would they not? But they shouldn’t do so in a sectarian manner that will throttle any initiative, even if an electoral alliance proposal were to be a runner with the groups/Independents.
I can sympathize with the notion that it seems to make sense that you support the current left incumbent TDs – you have what you hold. Yet, rival groups will contest elections running candidates against one another anyway. This smacks of sabotage to me and I will not vote/canvas for any group that does so.
For this reason, I cannot separate this ‘abstract’ discussion from past experience and future prospects. We have long since known that the ULA is a dead entity. What has been buried is the unparalleled opportunity for the left to build a united fight back party following the crisis of 2008. This opportunity has been squandered by the antics of sect building.
And it is time to say so and seek the ways in which we can challenge this odious development. Working people have a healthy dislike for the left looking hopelessly divided. Or as one man put it to me “You people don’t know your arse from your elbow, I’ll not vote for you again”.
Trying to rally activists around electoral alliances in this scenario is the equivalent of seeking to take the stake out of the vampire’s heart.
LikeLike
Looking at that question from a strategic view could we argue the following:
While they are small it is in the interests of the left to tactically agree in a mutually beneficial way considerate electoral strategies which will then allow the parties to establish, strengthen and deliver for the working class there will come a point where such a considerate electoral strategy becomes something limiting a party.
There comes a point when this nurturing, protective environment has to be exceeded. In order to be able to survive in a hostile political world one of the left parties will need to become stronger and stronger and eventually just replace or absorb the other(s). There comes a point when a party needs to move beyond such aids.
So I think the idea of electoral etiquette is first predicated on the common understanding by those parties that the left is in a weakened state and needs such nurturing. Yet at some point it will become redundant as it can only be retained for as long as its in their interest. The payoff for etiquette has to be greater than going solo.
If we read the discussion in electoral etiquette as now arising from the PM-SWP discussion I think the above outline can be extended back into the past to the formation and then end of the ULA – which was a mistaken assumption by some or all elements that the time had come to press ahead and leave a grouping which had the potential to nurture and incubate the left.
LikeLike
WbS – i think you are being a biut self-indulgent with this thread
LikeLike
In what respect ‘self indulgent’? It’s of interest to me and clearly is of some or considerable interest to other people who have responded so far, some of the contributions being very thoughtful.
LikeLike
I don’t think that the issue is one of etiquette. Nor is it really about what different groups do or don’t owe each other. I think it’s more usefully posed as a question of balancing the (legitimate but narrow) interests of particular pieces of the socialist movement with the (broader but sometimes less clear) interests of the broader movement.
Where no socialist candidate is going to feature strongly anyway, there is little to balance. Where one such candidate is certain to win regardless of what anyone else does, then there also might be nothing particularly irresponsible or sectarian about also standing (this however would be a much rarer situation!). But where a particular faction standing jeopardises the chances of another candidate, and therefore diminishes the likelihood of there being a socialist with that platform, then it is very much incumbent on those considering a run to think long and hard about that balance. It may be that there is some absolutely vital political issue or set of political issues at stake that justifies what would otherwise be a sectarian move. But if there isn’t, if the policies of each candidate are compatible and if the other candidate having that platform is of use to the left, to widening support for socialist ideas or for particular struggles, then queering the pitch in the pursuit of narrow factional advantage is simply irresponsible.
It’s not an issue of principle. Electoral strategy is a deeply pragmatic thing. But only incorrigible sectarians exercise that pragmatism only in the pursuit of factional gain, without thought for the wider movement.
LikeLike
candidate is more of a representation though isn’t it, irish back benchers even bar four irish cabinet ministers are so limited in what they can actually do that at best the average TD or clr is at best a token representation of what ever. The real split is duplication of resourses, finance, man/women power, materials etc that if the aim is to propogate a broad conspcept of socialism suffers more so for logistical reasons of the split than the token.
LikeLike
“… bar four irish cabinet ministers …” Who’s the fourth you’re thinking of? Taoiseach, Finance, Foreign Affairs—would Shatter be the other one, he does have a bit of weight to throw around.
LikeLike
do we not have two finance ministers now? maybe its 3
LikeLike
Believe it or not Mark P that’s essentially my view, my only caveat being – though you do imply this – that it is almost of necessity subjective. I can’t see how there can be absolutes in relation to the issue – for example take the LP, we’ve seen how once leftish TDs have atrophied politically and ideologically as incumbents but if elevated to principle they would be the first to complain (and now I think about it they do) at entirely correct challenges from the left… Which is a danger of incumbency as the guiding principle. At the same time and we said it both in different ways that’s no excuse for the PM situation and PBPAs potential actions
LikeLike
I’ve no problem believing that we are in basic agreement on this WbS, despite both you and JRG having something of a shared predeliction for endlessly arguing the toss!
Shea: Elected office for socialists in Ireland means a platform and some resources that can be used for campaigns etc. it certainly doesn’t mean actual power. As you also note it doesn’t mean actual power for the overwhelming majority of mainstream politicians either.
LikeLike
I’ve no problem believing that we are in basic agreement on this WbS, despite both you and JRG having something of a shared predeliction for endlessly arguing the toss!
Priceless.
LikeLike
Are you implying that I might share that propensity, Stan? How dare you!
(In fact I restrained myself from adding to the verbiage yesterday only because an unexpectedly unpleasant trip to the dentist had left me nearly psychotically bad-tempered)
LikeLike
Don’t hide your own light under a bushel Mark P, on a good day you’d give either of us a run for our money. That said when JRG and I finally meet in person it’s possible we’ll both break down in mutual recognition that we are kindred spirits…
LikeLike
Shooting fish in a barrrel. 🙂
LikeLike
We should comment on and/or attack the post, not the poster. Most people, including yourself, usually do this very well. But we all have our off-beam days.
Comments that seek to offend the contributor are out of order. If this happens to me, I will refuse to recognise the court.
LikeLike
Who was that addressed to BB? If you’re worried I was gettng at Mark P., don’t – I know him IRL and, though he may not thank me for it, he’s sound, considering……
It was what passes for fun around here.
LikeLike
I’ve just discovered how to properly position my reply. I intended the original reply for WbS. I obviously have a poor sense of humour too. It’s a fine line to walk. Thanks for the feedback.
LikeLike
Don’t worry about it BB. It’s easy to misread tone on the Internet. They’re just giving me a bit of gentle ribbing for the hypocrisy of my last post.
LikeLike
yeah sorry for stating the obvious but in terms of the question about proper etiquette i think maybe to answer that best it may be necessary to set context and parameters to what the left hope to gain from elections. If the answer is presumed to be intuitive then naturally people will come to different conclusions which may be a spur for friction.
The biggest pit fall seems to be the social capital that comes with it and the idea that it is more than a platform, the actual race can be more beneficial than the win if approached from a certain mentality.
LikeLike
[…] We’ve already covered the issue here and here […]
LikeLike