| Events
around the appointment of a President for the next seven years have degenerated
into farce.
After initially throwing some shapes in the direction of putting candidates
forward, the Labour and Green parties limped off the field before the
match started. Fine Gael had already declared that they would not even
show up.
Meanwhile right wing independent candidate Dana whined her way around
the County Councils denouncing the equally right-wing political establishment
for blocking her attempt to get four County Councils to nominate her to
contest the election.
The Presidency is an establishment institution, largely ceremonial, with
no real meaning for working people. Occasionally we hear patronising comments
that the President can reach out to people who are marginalised in society.
Where there is poverty or marginalisation, real social and economic investment
is needed, not gushing rhetoric from a figurehead who arrives in a luxury
motorcade and is whisked away again as quickly.
In September President Mary McAleese rang a parliamentary representative
of each registered political party "as a courtesy" to let their
parties know that she would nominate herself and be an "independent"
candidate.
It was highly unusual for a member of the Socialist Party to receive a
call, however brief, from a leading establishment figure. However, I informed
the President that we considered the Presidency to be superfluous and
that it should be abolished!
The process for securing a nomination to stand is highly undemocratic.
Requiring either 20 signatures from members of the Dail or Seanad on the
one hand, or the nomination of four County Councils on the other, it was
designed to restrict the candidates to representatives of the political
establishment.
It reveals much about the nature of Fine Gael, the Labour Party and the
Green Party that none were prepared to contest the election. The reason
given is that the incumbent Mary McAleese is "unbeatable" and
that therefore it would be a waste of resources and money to contest.
But if these parties believed they had a genuine alternative to the political
establishment in terms of ideas and a political and economic programme,
they would welcome the opportunity of having a public debate. They would
welcome the opportunity of putting their alternative against the traditional
capitalist governments irrespective of the expected result. In any case,
it is completely wrong to say months before an election that the result
is a foregone conclusion, since an intense campaign has its own dynamic
and if there was a genuine alternative well fought, major upsets could
be possible.
The results of the 1990 Presidential Election were significant in certain
ways. The candidate supported by the Labour Party, Mary Robinson, was
not a socialist by any means, but she represented for many people rejection
of the hypocritical and reactionary social policies of Fianna Fail in
particular, then under the leadership of Charles Haughey. The defeat of
the right wing candidates was significant and also foreshadowed the big
gains that the Labour Party made in the 1992 General Election on an anti-corruption,
anti-Fianna Fail platform. Of course the then Labour Party leader, Dick
Spring, criminally within four weeks put the same Fianna Fail back in
government.
If it was possible for any citizen or group to put forward a candidate
for a Presidential election without restriction, the Socialist Party could
well decide to put forward a candidate on a radical socialist programme.
In current circumstances that would mean, apart from the abolition of
the office itself, mobilising on key issues now confronting working people
in Ireland and the world at large.
Opposition to the rampant privatisation agenda of the Fianna Fail/Progressive
Democrat government and a defence in particular of Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta
and Dublin Bus as publicly owned companies would be central. So would
opposition to the imperialist invasion of Iraq and the collaboration of
the Irish government with the occupation by giving the U.S. military facilities
at Shannon. It would mean fighting on all the issues of the day and advancing
a socialist alternative, nationally and internationally, to capitalist
globalisation.
|