What does Catherine Connolly's Irish presidential victory mean?

*Editor's Note: The following essay was written by Professor Gary Murphy of the School of Law and Government at Dublin City University as part of the Irish Institute of Boston College's guest essay series.

As one of Ireland’s most leftwing politicians, there has been much speculation as to the significance and impact of Catherine Connolly’s victory in the recent presidential election. Her resounding victory comes at a time when there is increasing criticism in certain conservative quarters of Ireland’s position on various international events. For many on the left of the political spectrum, Connolly’s victory was seen as a clear rejection of what they perceive as the Fianna Fáil–Fine Gael coalition government’s push to end neutrality and increase militarisation. For others it was a rejection of the neoliberal, consumerist society which they see as having subjugated an entire people to the demands of capitalism. 

Pretty much all of Connolly’s supporters, if not all her voters, claimed that it showed a people desperate to be rid of the old two parties who between them have held office in every government since the state’s foundation.

Those who opposed Connolly in the election are a bit more sanguine about the meaning of her victory. They point to a weak alternative candidate in Fine Gael’s Heather Humphreys and a lack of choice in a second order election which is unlikely to have much if any impact at all on electoral politics. 

They give the example of Michael D. Higgins as a popular two-term president who was fond of saying radical things, but whose words had little impact on the state’s public policy. Labour, the party Higgins had been a lifelong member of, experienced catastrophic results in the three general elections it fought during his tenure. 

Whether Connolly’s historic success presages a dramatic change in Irish politics or not, she has certainly viewed it as such, claiming in her inauguration speech that her win was a catalyst to shape a new republic that lives up to its name. Connolly has a vision for the presidency as a vehicle of political change and a mandate of over 900,000 first preference votes and 63 per cent of the vote behind her. 

She is also following in Higgins’s reinterpretation of the presidency. In response to critics who accused him of interfering in areas in which the president should not trespass such as housing which Higgins once described as a disaster, he famously reminded them of his democratic mandate and said voters would have to decide whether they want a silent person, a puppet, or whether they want a president. 

Connolly clearly thinks along the same lines. She invoked the housing crisis early in her inauguration speech declaring a home to be a human right and she has long prided herself on her independence. She left the Labour Party in 2007 when it would not put her on the ticket alongside Higgins in the Galway West constituency. When she was first elected as a TD in the 2016 general election she accused the party of having lost its soul.

Connolly has always been a conviction politician, and like every other political zealot believes she is always right. It is this righteousness that fuelled her presidential campaign but also leaves many to wonder how she will cope with an office in which her political actions will be severely constrained. The constitutional boundaries of a president’s role are vaguely defined beyond a few specific requirements. A president may have an indirect influence on public policy through speeches or in meetings with the Taoiseach, but it is clear that presidents cannot influence policy directly. 

For all the radicalism of Michael D. Higgins in speeches on issues as diverse as housing, criticising EU leaders over austerity, chastising European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, and condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza to the point where he suggested that Israel and countries which sold it weapons should be excluded from the United Nations, public policy did not change in any of these areas. 

For the most part the governments were relatively happy for Higgins to make such speeches stating that it was his right to do so. It was only on the issue of Israel’s possible exclusion from the UN that the government explicitly asserted that what the president had said was not its official position. For his part Higgins was also relatively happy in being able to make such speeches even if they made little impact. 

The question now, however, is whether Connolly, and the government she was fiercely critical of during her time as a TD will exist as harmoniously given their radically different stances on issues both domestic and international. Connolly was among the most left-wing TDs during her nine years in the Dáil and is certainly more radical in her views than any of her presidential predecessors. The Fianna Fáil Fine Gael coalition government by contrast is classically centrist. 

Nowhere is this difference more marked than in attitudes to the United States of America. Connolly has long been a stern critic of American foreign policy, seeing it as imperially driven and as equally critical of NATO. She has also fiercely attacked the neoliberal agenda which has characterised the American economy for over half a century and is in fact distrustful of the whole idea of capitalism. 

Connolly is essentially an old-fashioned tax and spend socialist, keen on increased public spending in every arena except the military which she sees as being driven by arms manufacturers. Her support for Ireland’s military neutrality is central to her whole political philosophy and like many on the left in Ireland has long supported anti-colonial causes. She is a fervent supporter of Palestine.

By contrast, attracting American multinational companies into the country has been central to the economic strategy of Irish governments for over four decades. On foreign policy, Ireland, while militarily neutral, and not a member of NATO, was never politically neutral. It clearly supported the thrust of the Anglo-American alliance in the Cold War, and in the post-Cold War world has generally continued a policy of Atlanticism. 

This has been tested in the last two years since the Israeli war on Gaza began in the aftermath of the horrific Hamas attack on Israel of 7 October 2023. Support for the Palestinian cause is overwhelming in Ireland and is reflected in the government’s recognition of the state of Palestine. While there has been significant criticism by some American politicians, most notably Senator Lindsey Graham, for Irish support of the Palestinian cause, the Irish government has worked hard in insisting this cannot be equated with anti-Semitism. 

As a TD Catherine Connolly was very critical of President Donald Trump. During the final television debate of the presidential campaign, when asked about whether the US was complicit in genocide in Gaza, she said a genocide had been enabled and resourced by American money. But when asked whether she would use this language in a meeting with President Trump she said it was a speculative question and would depend on what was on the agenda. She then added if the discussion was genocide, that would be a completely different thing, but she doubted that would be the discussion.

And that in a nutshell describes how the election of Catherine Connolly is likely to impact Irish American relations. She will in time no doubt speak out forcefully on military neutrality, on what she sees as genocide in Gaza, on austerity and neoliberalism, but such are the constraints of her office, she can do nothing practical about any of these issues.

Higgins spoke eloquently on all of these to no visible effect on this particular special relationship. In that context any outspokenness on international events by Connolly is likely to be of limited consequence in both the American and international sphere. If there is any change in how Ireland is viewed in the United States it is unlikely to be due to the words and actions of President Connolly.

*This essay was shared with IrishCentral by The Irish Institute of Boston College.