Low Calibre Candidates

A spur of the moment trip to Dublin last Sunday managed to concentrate my mind about the dearth of talent among candidates for the local and European elections here. I hadn't paid too much attention to the posters here, depicting some familar faces and most political parties. I drove through North Dublin, a veritable forest of Labour and Sinn Fein posters, depicting alternately grizzled veterans and fresh-faced naifs, that city's shy and retiring Fianna Fail Mayor, Royston Brady barely stood out. That Brady's running mate, Eoin Ryan, undersupported by his party in favour of the ubiquitous narcissist, and the "evil of two lessers" himself, Gay Mitchell were the most attractive candidates spoke volumes as to the deficiencies of those remaining.

In considering Irish politics, I oscillate between pessimism and optimism. One cause for optimism is the patent success of our, relatively, lower taxes and, relatively, more liberal economy. The principal cause for pessimism is how badly understood this is. You will hear all sorts of unfounded explanations for our relative prosperity, from government-brokered "partnership agreements" between Trades Union and Employers' "representatives" to membership of the European Union and receipt of structural funds, to, laughably, additional regulations and "equality" legislation. According to teachers' unions, seeking massive pay rises, our prosperity is due to, well, teachers. All of these purported explanations have two things in common: 1) They are tailored to suit furthering a political agenda, in many cases contrary to prosperity, and 2) They all fall apart on closer examination.

What is truly depressing for any small government advocate, anyone vaguely interested an open society or a liberal economy is that the current governing coalition - composed of such interfering technocrats as Micheal Martin and Noel Dempsey who manage to combine arrogance and smugness, responsible for the autocratic workplace smoking ban and, with one notable exception, supine in the face of "intolerant tolerance" - is by some distance preferable to every possible alternative. A government composed from the current opposition bench or a marriage of convenience between Fianna Fail and Labour or (God forbid!) Sinn Fein is likely to interfere more and pursue myriad prosperity-destroying policies.

Comments

[Dick O'Brien]

Which reminds me, I've a little anecdote about Mr. Shyness himself that I should post.

[Frank McGahon]

Please do!

[Dick O'Brien]

Don't worry, I will when I get a few minutes to write some posts.

[Jon Ihle]

Royston Brady: uniting libertarians and socialists since 2004.

[Jon Ihle]

On a more serious note, I'm encountering a similar problem in my first Irish election. There are parties I won't vote for on principle (SF, FF), parties I can't think of a reason to vote for (FG), parties that aren't running in my area (PDs) and parties with which I have a cultural affinity but from which I feel politically alienated (Labour, Greens).

I actually regard the PDs as the best party vehicle for achieving many of the policy goals I support (free market economy, smaller government, lower taxes) but really recoil at their authoritarian streak, not to mention their asinine, inchoherent and reactionary immigration policy.

Of course, none of these are local issues. Sadly, it may be logical for me to vote FF, since their local people will be best-positioned to win goodies from their Dublin masters in our degenerate clientelist system.

[Frank McGahon]

Jon, It is the perennial problem with Irish politics. But: you do have to deal with the choice presented to you -the hand you're dealt - and not the choice you would prefer. Samizdata's Perry de Havilland regularly suggests not to bother vote at all but I disagree. In particular, it is worth voting in Ireland because, unlike UK and US, small number of votes can make a huge difference.

My best suggestion is to start with the bottom and work up from "most worst" to least worst. Figure out who you really don't want to get a seat, then move to the next all the way until you are happy to tolerate choice x over choice y.

There is no doubt that for any small government advocate, the PDs represent the "least worst" no matter how many fools like Liz O'Donnell they contain or how McDowell has taken to authoritarianism. Yet there would be no point in voting PD if they had no realistic chance of getting a seat in your area. The next least worst after PDs, is FF. For every Dempsey or Martin, there is still an O'Dea and a McCreevey. There just isn't any other show in town. When you get to the next, these days a vote for Fine Gael might as well be a vote for Labour but if one must choose it is marginally better to have a FG seat over a Labour seat. I would rank Labour as next least worst and I have a hard time differentiating between Greens and Sinn Fein as most worst.

In voting for local elections personalities probably matter a lot more than parties: there are plenty of good sensible councillors but pork-plundering parish pumps are regrettably the norm, but even they are preferable to the pious unworldly fools to be found in the Greens. I disagree that the primary purpose of a councillor ought to be winning goodies from Dublin. There's still a lot which could be done to restrain the empire building county managers who proliferate Irish local government.

[Edmund Burke]

Geez Frank
Surely the Greens are preferable. Pious and unworldly they may be, but far better that than the Nazis of Sinn Fein.

[Frank McGahon]

If I was to adopt a purely utilitarian view, eschewing rhetoric, I find it hard to conclude that Green policies would be less harmful than Sinn Fein policies.

For me the question about SF is should a political party be allowed to have its own army? and the answer is a resounding no. That would suggest that sanctions ought to be applied until the IRA disbands. But that is not what is happening. Any voter-punishment for not forcing the disdandment of the IRA ought to apply to the remaining parties as much as SF. Given that SF are not to be prevented from participating in elections one must weigh their policies, such as they are, against those of the Greens. I find both equally delusory, unrealistic and harmful

[Frank McGahon]

....but I suppose If I think about it, I would prefer to see my old classmate Ciaran Cuffe in the cabinet ahead of Martin Ferris, just so long as he was in somewhere harmess like Foreign Affairs rather than the Department of the Environment.

[enda johnson]

well frank,
FF, FG, WP, DL and Labour have all been allowed to stuff their snouts in the glorious trough that is our 'democracy', without having to disband, decommission, or do any other pony & dog tricks apart from actually winning votes. why should SF be treated any differently? as for ferris v. cuffe in government - at least with ferris, people know what they're getting and they can take it or leave it. ciarán cuffe and his fabulous oil wealth on the other hand is an altogether more slippery prospect.

[Frank McGahon]

SF should be treated differently because they pledge their allegiance to a treasonous army which purports to be the "true" government of this country.

As for Cuffe vs. Ferris, you can take it that I'm unenthusiastic about either prospect.

[enda johnson]

well frank,
if by that you mean SF aren't happy with the state (and statelet) in existence in our country and want to fundamentally change the dispensation, i'm not sure they're all that different from your good self and your libertarian cadres! i haven't heard of this 'pledge of allegiance'

[enda johnson]

for the sake of argument, how should SF be treated differently?

[Frank McGahon]

There's a difference between wanting to change and asserting that you are already the sovereign government. Is this really so hard to grasp?

I am all for "fundamentally changing the dispensation" provided, of course, that doesn't include forcible annexation of an unwilling territory. But the problem with SF is not that they want to annexe the North, per se. Nobody is asking them to abandon their aim for a United Ireland. The problem is that their organisation is treasonous: it purports already to be the only legitimate government.

Imagine it differently: say we had a neighbouring, hostile, island, off the coast of Co. Cork, called Progressivedemocratistan. Let us say it was revealed that the PDs (short for Progressive Democrats!) were spies on behalf of the Progressivedemocratistan army. Do you think that they should be allowed to carry on like a normal party?

For the sake of argument: In any democracy there are conditions for involvement in politics, one condition ought to be that, at the very least, one is not involved with an armed organisation which asserts treasonous authority contrary to the constitution. SF maintains that SF and the IRA are two separate organisations, very well then: one of those organisations must be disbanded, they can choose which.

[enda johnson]

the problem with SF ... is that their organisation is treasonous: it purports already to be the only legitimate government.
i don't think that SF purports to be the government. it aims to be the government, though not, of course, the government of a 26 county state. as for the IRA, well, that is not within SFs power to change, regardless of any overlap in membership. so why should it be for SF to move on the disbandment of the IRA? if the IRA is illegal it is for the forces of 'law & order' to move on that, not SF. is there anything more ludicrous than the minister for 'justice' making wild allegations and then demanding that others sort it out for him? but then again, i hear there is an election coming up ...
but anyway, even if we accept your above assertion, how should SF be treated differently?

[Frank McGahon]

Enda, it is curious that you choose to accept the polite fiction - that SF and the IRA are separate bodies - at face value. Not even SF believes this to be true, it is simply a useful rhetorical device. The IRA does assert to be the only legitimate government of this country and, even accepting the polite fiction, many SF members are also members of this "totally seperate" organisation and have taken the same oath. Those who are not IRA members don't disagree with their colleages on this point: Until a 32 county socialist republic is established the only legitimate government is the IRA army council. This is SF's position and, though you will encounter many contortions and evasions around this, you will search in vain for a repudiation by SF of this.

Thus SF are in an analogous position to the "Progressivedemocratistan" spies in my thought experiment. I say that either the IRA is disbanded or SF. Participation in the political process should be condtional on no association of any kind with subversive treasonous armies.

[enda johnson]

ok,
i do accept the assertion that SF and the IRA are distinct bodies at face value - but even if they were not, increasing numbers of people vote for them and i do not believe those voters are voting for the IRA.
your answer to how SF should be treated differently seems to be that they be disbanded. i find the notion of banning (what else can disbandment mean in this context) political parties offensive. by all means if you catch SF members robbing banks lock 'em up, but banning the party is a step not even the british were prepared to take. i take it then that you also agree with the spanish government's actions against HB. are such actions not repugnant to libertarians?

[Frank McGahon]

I do agree with the Spanish government's action against Herri Batasuna as it happens. Such actions are not inherently repugnant to libertarians. If it is not repugnant to ban a hostile army like ETA then it is not repugnant to ban their front organisation. The point is that there is no incentive for SF to disband the IRA, sorry persuade the IRA to disband and that organisation has shown no inclination to "wither away" (as many fools have gullibly and optimistically forecast). If one is serious about disbanding the IRA the only possible way of doing so is to ban SF until the IRA disbands. It is ironic that the whole decommissioning thing was invented as a face-saving way of talking about disbandment and even this is a step too far for SF. Decommissioning is, as SF say, a "red herring". Disbandment is what's really needed.

[enda johnson]

frank,
i disagree with your assertion that the IRA has shown no inclination to "wither away" (as many fools have gullibly and optimistically forecast).
it seems obvious to me that that is exactly what is happening and has been happening for 10 years now. i also disagree with the notion that the whole decommissioning thing was invented as a face-saving way of talking about disbandment. history will record that decommissioning was invented as a way of avoiding talking to SF at all, at a time when the british still hadn't reconciled themselves to the notion that a negotiated settlement was the only possible outcome. it is hard for me to see how the IRA can be more effectively stood down than allowing the process to continue for another 10 years or so: if P O'Neill issues a statement tomorrow to 'dump arms', would that satisfy you? would it prevent current IRA members reconstituting as, say, the JSB, and launching a campaign of bombings for a 32 county socialist utopia? would it prevent a different group from inheriting the IRAs title and carrying on as before? if, as i suspect, the answer to all these questions is no, then it makes no sense to ban a political party until the never never land of effectively unverifiable decommissioning/disbandment to the satisfaction of unionists/FG/PD occurs.
FF, FG, WP, DL & Labour have all had similar associations with 'armies' which have faded over time, as will that between SF & the IRA. if you're in the business of banning political parties, maybe mcdowell's authoritarian streak does appeal to you after all? can i add the ICP to the banned list too? conor cruise o'brien is a unionist and could therefore be accused of having betrayed the interests of his country to the british 'enemy', should we ban him too? maybe after a trial? but a quick perusal of article 39 of deValera's constitution reveals that no, neither are treasonous and, who'd a thunk it?!?, neither are SF!

[Frank McGahon]

On Treason: Article 39 seems pretty unambiguous to me:

Treason shall consist only in levying war against the State, or assisting any State or person or inciting or conspiring with any person to levy war against the State, or attempting by force of arms or other violent means to overthrow the organs of government established by this Constitution, or taking part or being concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to make or to take part or be concerned in any such attempt

as for decommissioning:

if P O'Neill issues a statement tomorrow to 'dump arms', would that satisfy you?

No, that's why I say I agree with SF that decommissioning is a red herring. If the IRA disband, I'm quite happy that the guns rust away. The question you need to ask is: why shouldn't they disband, for what purpose do they remain in business?

[Tony Allwright]

The political issue is not whether SF or the IRA should disband. And I would agree that banning them would only result in their popping up again in some other guise.

The real issue is that SF should disassociate itself from the IRA, just as the DUP and UUP have disassociated themselves from loyalist paramilitaries. This is what the other parties in the South, the media and the electorate should be demanding.

SF failure to disassociate itself merely confirms its underlying violent agenda.

Very good related piece, by the way, by Alan Ruddock in the latest Sunday Times at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1143690,00.html .