‘Our political parties have hijacked representative democracy’

FOLLOWING the dialogue on Twitter surrounding the “Great Debate” on Monday night, I was struck by the number of tweeters who immediately likened the set to that of The Weakest Link, and who were bemoaning the non-appearance of that show’s host, Anne Robinson.

The “conversation” then continued along similar lines for the entire duration of the debate, focusing almost entirely on the debate’s presentation, rather than on its content, as one would have preferred — or is that just my idealism showing again?

What did actually take place in that Montrose studio on Monday night? Why did an average of more than 900,000 viewers take the trouble of tuning in? What were the looking for, and did they get it? What was the end result?

My views on the need for radical reform of our political systems are long-established. An essential element of my basic thesis is the fact that our system of representative democracy has been hijacked by our political parties, all of whom have contrived to do so, since the foundation of our state in most instances. As with any trade, profession or calling, over the centuries of its evolution, a veritable catalogue of “tricks of the trade” has evolved; unlike other occupations, however, the benefits accruing from this evolutionary process have done so almost entirely to the advantage of the practitioners, rather than the consumers. Indeed it’s probably apposite to say that for every advantage accruing to the politicians there is a corresponding, and more than likely disproportionate, disadvantage to the electorate. In every other sphere, business is transacted on a daily basis with a market-based fair exchange of payment for goods or services; regrettably, in politics, the transaction only takes place once every few years, and it’s market-place is seller-dominated.

Monday’s debate was simply a continuation of this theme. What was presented and, for most, passed as a “debate”, was anything but. Five similar individuals were asked questions, in turn, by another, all in the guise of a discussion of their respective stances in relation to the major issues facing the nation, and how they would propose dealing with them in government, if afforded the opportunity by the electorate in the very near future. How such a project could be taken seriously under it’s particular circumstances is beyond me; 45 seconds for a response to each question — come off it — “normal” people would have some chance of complying with the time-limit, but obfuscating politicians? Forget it!

What we ended up with reminded me of how the game of snooker was televised in the days of black-and-white only television; its very essence, the differing colours of the balls, had to be relayed through the medium of the commentator and was therefore totally lost to the viewer. Come to think of it, a commentator/interpreter wouldn’t have been such a bad idea...

A fascinating sub-plot of the entire fiasco for me was the jockeying for position of “leader of the opposition” — which is, in reality, the only key issue yet to be decided, into which the electorate will have a direct input. The options are worth exploring, not least because of the potential long-term implications for the tapestry of politics on this island of ours.

It was by no means surprising that Micheál Martin went for Gerry Adams’ jugular in relation to his, how do I put this, “personal baggage”, because if the ultimate outcome is as generally expected and a FG/Lab coalition assumes office sometime next month, then there’s the question of the occupier of a particular vacant seat across the floor of the Dáil chamber from where an Taoiseach sits.The occupier of that vacant seat will be the leader of the largest opposition group in the next Dáil, in the same way that it was occupied by Enda Kenny, as the leader of Fine Gael. The understandable assumption is that Micheal Martin will be the occupier for the forseeable future, but that’s a dangerous assumption to make, I suggest.

Firstly it presumes that Eamonn Gilmore and Labour will be a partner in the incoming government — by no means certain, I believe, and in the event of Labour in opposition, and the current polling positions relative to the other parties being maintained, then the seat is his. However, in the alternative, and with Gilmore in government and therefore removed from the opposition equation, it will, in all probability, come down to a contest between Martin and Adams. Another understandable assumption would be that the position would be FF’s, and therefore Martin’s; again, not so. My friends in sportsspread.com tell me their market is predicting an outcome for FF of 28-30 seats, and for Sinn Féin of 14-15. A reasonable advantage for FF, I’m sure you’ll agree; but this is politics, remember, and nothing in politics is quite as simple as it looks.

The significance of the position of opposition leader is that it carries with it the right of first reply and indeed first question. It is a position coveted by all in opposition, and indeed envied by many government backbenchers, and no effort will be spared in laying a legitimate claim to it. At first glance, and on the poll results as well as the sportsspread.com figures, it’s FF’s for the taking. However, one of the great imponderables of the current situation is the potential for independents of all hues and none. These are signalled to have a potential return of the order of 14.4 — 17 and, were this potential to be realised, could provide a major stumbling-block/support-base for anyone with designs on the prize. A lot to play for yet.