How this Irish American would reform Irish politics

Larger Text

Print

E-mail

12 Comments

Leinster House.

Tweet

Here in Ireland, there were surely some in the hierarchy of the then-governing Fianna Fáil parliamentary party who had deep reservations about the National Assets Management Agency (NAMA).  NAMA was conceived by the party leadership and their economic advisers as a means of rescuing the banks from their out of control lending practices during the Celtic Tiger and militating against an even worse economic catastrophe than the one that has taken place.  Yet back then, not one Fianna Fáil TD openly opposed the enabling legislation for fear of the repercussions.

Obama voiced disappointment at his party colleagues’ acquiescence to Bush’s opportunistic power grab knowing that he would not be punished as a result.  A Fianna Fáil TD who voted against the NAMA legislation knew that he would have been expelled from the parliamentary party and consigned to the wilderness.

Under the status quo in Ireland, an elected official’s own beliefs, conscience and free will are subjugated to her party’s dictates.  Those politicians who advance into leadership positions get there because they have demonstrated relentless fidelity to their party above all else and an aptitude for defending the party leadership from attack, even when objectively indefensible.  As such, Irish politicians are compromised by the time they get anywhere near the top.  It is no wonder then that the electorate is so cynical about its political leaders.

Irish political parties do sometimes allow TDs to vote their conscience without fear of the party whip.  TDs should be allowed, and actually encouraged, to vote their conscience.  While some might argue that this would cause legislative paralysis and/or chronic instability, a politician joins a party – at least one would hope – because he generally agrees with its ideology, ethos and culture.  Consequently, he is likely to support the party on most votes anyway.

Of course, party dictates can also prove extremely troublesome on less lofty, more parochial, but even more politically volatile, local issues.  Whether it’s a government decision to close a rail station or withdraw a regional hospital’s patient services, voters invariably – and quite rightly in my view – want the people they put into office to fight for them.  Government TDs are all too often put in an impossible position: support the will of their constituents and be ostracized by the parliamentary party or genuflect to party headquarters and face a perilous re-election campaign.

Those who call the shots at party headquarters should reflect on the dilemma they force office holders into and ask themselves a simpler question.  Do they want to keep their TD, who supports the party 90% of the time, or to facilitate the election of another aspirant to office, who’ll support their agenda virtually none of the time?  In the United Sates, the Democratic and Republican parties, while not encouraging dissent, have said yes to the former and no to the latter.  Doing so has allowed each party to elect candidates in ordinarily unfavorable territory.

Print

E-mail

Tweet