First anniversary of Michael D Higgin’s lacklustre, unfocused presidency marked today

According to the editorial writer in The Irish Times on 5 November, 71-year old  President Michael D Higgins ‘has performed assertively and well’ during his first year as President of Ireland. Does this mean he is convincing, credible and effective? 

When the wreath laying, headstone tapping and fraternal greetings to the widows’ of long-deceased fallen idols are segregated from the activity of his first year in office, what remains that defines his presidency? 

He has been a critic of the EU’s failure to balance austerity with growth and job creation, but what interventions has he made directly to counter this and to stimulate employment other than offer idle chatter?  Who is he connected to that is strategically relevant to enhancing the prosperity of Ireland?  Who accepts his phone calls?

His speeches tend to be long and weary commentaries about abstract concepts of general concern over which he has limited or no, capacity to influence.  Any one of the sloppy and slovenly Independent TDs in Dáil Éireann could embrace a similar platform of self-righteousness  but Higgins is Head of State, not a local, scruffy ward heeler.  How, creatively and dynamically is he using the resources of the presidency?

The Irish Times interview with President Higgins (A Year in the Áras, 3 November) conveys an impression of a one-dimensional presidency on a perpetual campaigning carousel, engaging only in a zealous, but somewhat ambiguous, quest for a philosophy that might produce a purer form of virtue and an ethical culture that is more robust. The theme of this endeavour is to be adapted in 2013 from the attribution in 2012 that unregulated markets caused ‘a post ethical, or unethical existence’ to wider reflection and deliberation on what is described as ‘the crisis in ethics and the crisis among intellectuals’.  What impact will that have on the stature and wellbeing of Ireland other than being fire side conversation over a stale pint of Guinness?

But as far as the public is concerned the presidential election campaign is over, having resulted in President Higgins achieving the highest-ever number of first preference votes in the seven contested presidential elections. Public focus is now on what the President is actually delivering. It is regrettable, therefore, that President Higgins did not avail of this interview opportunity to describe the impact, effectiveness and strategic accomplishments of the first year of his presidency.

The long-term unemployment rate is 8.8% and 29% of those in the 20-24 year age group are unemployed. But nowhere in this interview does the President refer to his attitude towards investor sentiment, profit, employment creation, opportunity, innovation, incentive or risk mitigation all of which are critical catalysts to relieve the debilitating and tragic catastrophe haunting Irish society. Why should President Higgins seem to be so detached and aloof from the benchmarks of economic vitality and the complexity of investment decision making, or is he taking the achievement of a dynamic investment flow from sectors that are rigorously regulated and closely scrutinised too much for granted?

The interview describes the thousands of encounters the President has had this year and the journeys he has taken. But it does not elaborate as to what proportion of these interventions have had a significant or influential impact, or which are a reflection of the eminent stature and the privileged global access the unique prestige of his office confers.

The President is preparing a speech for delivery in the New Year intended to truthfully represent the history of The 1913 Lockout to ensure that the efforts of workers of that era, struggling to achieve even the most minimal power to protect themselves, is accurately portrayed by him.

But what initiatives and interventions to promote investment and employment creation does he intend to take to ensure that the workers of 2013 and the hundreds of thousands deprived of work are afforded the opportunity to achieve a modest level of self-sufficiency and dignity to sustain themselves and protect the integrity of their families?

President Higgins attributes the widespread failure of institutional leadership in Ireland to moral turpitude, prompting ‘a different search for a source of morality’ –as if morality was something one discovers in a Swedish furniture warehouse. He states that ‘the President’s discretion is what defines the Presidency’, the essence of which is moral authority, but he also wants to extend the boundaries of the presidency.

What specific, focused, targeted accomplishments would he like to describe at the conclusion of the second year of his presidential legacy in November 2013 that are shown to have had a compelling and enduring impact; are the product of the discretion and boundaries already available to him and are crafted by his irrepressible insight, passion, acumen and charm combined with the counsel, guidance, pragmatism and experience of his officials?

Opinion poll heralds seismic shift in Irish presidential election campaign

The latest MRBI poll results in The Irish Times are not surprising but there are 21 days campaigning days left and much can change to influence the outcome.

People are deeply and passionately interested in who is the head of state because that person becomes the bearer of a part of the ego of each and every citizen that defines our nation. The public want to know who these candidates really are and not to be merely presented with a sanitized caricature of who the candidates would like the public to perceive them to be wrapped in an enigma that is no more than a stream of vacuous consciousness of the candidate’s concept of utopia.

Michael D Higgins is the only one of the 7 that passed the biographical-details test and who introduced himself and his wife to the wider public via the Miriam Meets programme on RTE 1 Radio when he disclosed some personal minutiae about both of them.

The public also need to have some robust conviction what the election of any candidate is likely to signal about Ireland to the wider world and what impact that candidate will have on the presidential office – especially the capacity to safeguard the dignity of the office and the nation. The president is the mirror of the nation.

The potential implications of these poll trends are considerable. Fianna Fáil has demonstrated that it is so marginalised and reviled that it could not even put forward a candidate from the mainstream of Irish society to begin to inspire public confidence.

The Fine Gael party has some grounds for the deepest introspective reflection and soul-searching if their best offer to the Irish public is a candidate who is trailing second last seven – 35 points lower than the party itself. Enda Kenny has won the trust of the public and presents as a Taoiseach comfortable in that role.

I have seen first-hand in locations far away from Erin’s shore over the past 10 days that he and Eamon Gilmore have managed to salvage the credibility and stature of the country because Ireland is seen overseas as being led by a competent, stable and responsible government by power brokers whose vigilant gimlet eye defines sentiment.

Sinn Féin must think beyond the boundaries of their traditional narrow, conservative regional enclave if they are to make the stunning breakthrough they believe to be their right. They need turn up for the work they are handsomely paid to do in Westminster and scrutinise the legislation that is impacting the lives of tens of thousands of citizens in the single-seat parliamentary constituencies that they were elected to represent. Laggards in any walk of life are ultimately a useless, irrelevant carbuncle on the arse of spineless society. If Sinn Féin is to be acknowledged as a serious party of national leadership then it is time to start leading, not posturing as neighbourhood activists and playing to the whims of a narrow gallery .

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.