Political parties scarred by presidential election

Summer time ends in Ireland At 2.00 AM tomorrow morning and I will be en route to Moscow at 5.45 AM, an jour earlier than usual.  But the dark winter evenings should provide Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael with ample time to reflect on the presidential election results.

Fianna Fáil, battered by the general election, did not even contest the election and the party lost the only Dáil seat it held in Dublin in the by-election following the death of the Brian Lenihan.

However, Seán Gallagher, a political novice, who maintained that he was an Independent candidate and having consistently shown a 40% rating in the polls, saw his prospects collapse when it became clear that he was a fund raiser for Fianna Fáil but was not always entirely certain what the source of the funds raised was.

When he mentioned that ‘I may have picked up an envelope’ he sent a shudder through Irish society which reminded them of the venal record of Fianna Fáil and the fact that not all funds raised actually reached their intended target. Despite all of that Gallagher won 504,964 first preference votes which represented a 12% dip on his polling trend.

Fine Gael, now in Government, chose a candidate, Gay Mitchell, who garnered only 113,321 first preference votes – 6.4% of the poll while the party itself is trending in the mid thirties.  This was a diabolical result notwithstanding that one member of the party aristocracy, Leo Varadker, stated that “Gay Mitchell was a good candidate” and another blue blood, Phil Hogan stated that the outcome ‘was not a disaster for the Party’.  What defines a disaster for Hogan? A capacity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?  They insulted the electorate by choosing a non-viable candidate and then abandoning him.  The electorate will not forget that!

Mary Banotti contested the last presidential election in 1997 for Fine Gael and secured 372,002 first preference votes – 29.2% of the poll .

The Fine Gael candidate in the 1990 presidential election was Austin Currie.  He secured 267,902 first preference votes – 17% of the poll.

The drama queen, Dana Rosemary Scallon, won 51,220 first preference votes in this week’s election and this compares to 175,458 first preference votes when she inflicted herself on the electorate in the last presidential election in 1997.

Will Ireland elect a straw-man or straw-woman as President?

I observed the ebb and flow of the Irish presidential election over the past 10 days, or so, in Puerto Banus  on the Costa de Sol. It has been a turgid campaign not made any easier for voters by a naive and very amateurish approach and a reluctance by candidates to disclose very much about themselves.

Take Seán Gallagher for instance.  I received a leaflet from him by mail when I returned yesterday.  He states ‘Ireland is a great country.  We are a strong and proud people.  We have an entrepreneurial spirit.  We have bright and well educated young people.  We are creative, loved and respected internationally.’  He goes on to say ‘What we need now is to believe in ourselves’.  The only information conveyed about himself is his surname and one Christian name.

Dana Rosemary Scallon in a similar leaflet explains that ‘I will be President for all the people’.  Really? Is that not the purpose of the office? ‘I will always protect Irelands sovereignty’ but as a ‘truly independent’ she says ‘I have no agenda’.  Mrs Scallon discloses no personal details about herself and neither do any of the other candidates.

Someone seeking to work as a chambermaid in the presidential mansion would be required to provide more biographical information than these people.

Why should voters give any consideration to candidates who are essentially strangers?  Apart from winning enough votes the incoming President also needs to win the trust of the nation and the legitimacy to be an effective President with the potential to become a statesman of consequence in the global arena.

A curriculum vitae would have been an appropriate starting point.  Voters ought to know who the potential President really and details such as educational attainment; proficiency in languages; leadership experience; ability to scrutinise legislation; personal values and whether they are tax compliant, solvent or legal transgressions.  They could elaborate on how they have coped with crisis in their lives.

All of this could form the backdrop to an explanation of how they might conduct the presidency; the priorities and concrete goals they intend to set.

What has transpired instead is a campaign driven by the news media who investigated facets of candidates’ background leaving the candidate floundering with peripheral issues that become full-blown controversies.

A mandate to become President of Ireland or a camouflage for congenital laziness and inertia?

The Irish people are about to be asked to make a 7-year commitment on the 27th October when they choose they next President.  They are entitled to be provided with an intelligent insight into the qualities, qualifications and limitations of the panel of candidates and how each of them intends to conduct that office. 

The Irish Times in its edition of 3^rd October has given the candidates in the Irish presidential election a platform to set out their stall under the banner ‘Why I should be President’. Each of them manages to convey absolutely nothing to answer this question.

Mary Davis wants ‘to make a contribution to Ireland’s recovery; restoration of pride at home and reputation across the world’. She does not indicate how she intends to accomplish this. But, like an observer on the upper deck of a double-deck bus she has seen others overcome adversity. As a member of the Council of State she has observed the protection of the Constitution. She advises that “the presidency is about ‘influence’ – using your voice as president to speak for all the people of Ireland, especially those for whom Ireland has not been a welcoming place; about using the office to promote fairness, equality and respect for every person in the country and playing a more expansive international role”.  How has this candidate obtained influence and used it throughout her career?

To whom will her voice be directed to achieve these desirable objectives? What is fairness? How can a President inculcate respect for every person? Where will the more expansive international role be conducted and who on the international will make a difference? She doesn’t indicate which languages she is proficient in so as to expand the international footprint.  The electorate need to understand the precise scope and nature of the intended contribution.

Sean Gallagher wants to put enterprise at the heart of the next presidency. How will his concept of enterprise be juxtaposed with the dynamics of a free marketplace? He wants to become involved in trade missions. Where would he travel to and who would he meet? What would he say when met the target audience? How would he select his targets?

But it is not the function of the President of Ireland to lead trade missions. Dialogue with business people is a components of a President’s international mandate but the responsibility for execution and delivery rests with a Government minister. Gallagher fails to indicate an understanding of the function. Other people are paid handsomely to accomplish what he thinks he could achieve. The nation needs an inspiring statesman in the role of President, not a technician with modest accomplishments.

Michael D Higgins wants inclusive citizenship in a creative society. He does not elaborate on what barriers need to be removed to progress this and how he, as President, can remove them. What is inclusive citizenship? How might I feel if I were included in this process? He is almost 70 years old. Will his health and stamina be robust enough to be an effective President?

David Norris continues to wander around his own personal hall of fame. He wants to put the welfare of people at the centre of political culture. Is that not a role for the leaders of political parties? He believes the role of President needs to be reinvented so that the image of Ireland evokes a smile but fails to elucidate in what direction he would reinvent it.

Gay Mitchell is concerned about the number of suicides and elsewhere I read that he is proposing that the Irish President should become joint head of state in Northern Ireland. Mitchell has been in politics for decades. Why has he had no influence on suicide trends and what exactly does he believe the President can do about this trend? The election is being fought on the basis of the Constitution. How does he propose to effect his proposal with respect to Northern Ireland? Perhaps he might emulate President Obama if he were to seek to also become the joint President of Russia. Credibility rather than hallucinogenic thinking might offer more grounded leadership.

Martin McGuinness wants to construct a new republic in which he would be President of people in the 32 counties of Ireland – whether they want this or not. He wants to make employment the cornerstone of his presidency – but in which part of his kingdom will the jobs become available and who will be the employers? He wants to overhaul what he describes as the archaic mode of selecting candidates but he does not elaborate on what the nature of his implied change might be.  How will he deal with conflicts of interest between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?

Dana presents herself as an entertainer and a business woman. We know she sings hymns but the electorate has no idea as to what her business experience is or how successful she has been in this field. She wants to be an ardent protector of the Constitution. Her presidency will be a catalyst to overcome intolerance and eliminate barriers. How does she intend to do that?

If each of these candidates were to set out what accomplishments they aim to achieve in the second year of the 7-year term the electorate might have some idea as to where their compass is pitched. These vignettes lack candour, conviction or credibility. But this opinion piece is merely a trawl of a stream of consciousness that contains no analysis; an unfocused immature internal monologue. The tragedy is that this pathetic posturing could shroud the egotistical ambitions of lazy, incompetent people unfit for the role of head of state who would become a massive reputational time bomb as President of Ireland.