Race so far has been generic, dull and unimaginative

IT’S been interesting to hear the merits of democracy bandied about during the reality show that the race for the Áras has become.

It’s particularly interesting when you think that the last time the democratic process was employed to elect a President was 14 years ago. I was 15.

So despite now being almost 30, I have never been given the opportunity to have my say in democratically electing someone to the highest office in the land.

Such talk of democracy and the merits of facilitating as many people to get on the ballot, was in short supply last time out, when political parties of all persuasions decided that Mary McAleese should be returned without an election.

Then again, our first President Douglas Hyde was never elected either.

This is no slight on Ms McAleese, who has been roundly praised for her performance in office.

However, as I understand it, democracy requires, at the very least, the people being given a choice.

Although I come from a family with a interest in politics bordering on obsession, the presidency is not something which ever really grabbed my attention.

Sure, the 1990 presidential campaign was full of controversy and dirty tricks, but I was eight years old and, unsurprisingly, far more interested in other things at that age.

Even by the time Mary McAleese arrived in 1997, when I was 15, the whole thing seemed incredibly bland to me. Campaigning on such a dreary slogan as “building bridges” was never going to inspire me, even if I could vote.

Similarly bland and essentially meaningless slogans and visions are to be found in the current campaigns which, although only a day old, seem to have been with us an eternity.

Such gems as “Understands our past, believes in our future” (Gay Mitchell), “Towards a new Republic” (Martin McGuinness) and the almost laughably straightforward “The President who will do us proud” (Michael D Higgins) are about as enervating as our lengthening dole queues.

The thing is that, despite all the blather about leadership, few people look to the President for leadership in any meaningful way.

They look to the Taoiseach for that, whatever his or her faults.

In a President, we just want someone who won’t make a show of us internationally and can handle the few big set piece events that come our way, such as the visit of the Queen, without making some horrible gaffe.

Political scientists have routinely pointed out that the Irish presidency is one of the weakest in any liberal democracy and since the time of Douglas Hyde has been enshrined as being “above politics”.

The President really only has two main powers of any significance. Every bill passed by both houses goes to the President, who must sign it within two weeks or refer it to the Supreme Court. The second involves the dissolution of the Dáil and the calling of a general election usually done on the advice of the Taoiseach.

Given the tradition of the office being “above politics”, my reason for having little interest in it is for exactly that reason. Put simply, it’s dull.

While the two Marys certainly changed the office and made it far more relevant to the masses, the current crop of candidates are constrained by history and having to remain “above politics”.

Therefore, what candidates say on their posters, in interviews, debates and on the streets is a mixture of generic, dull, unimaginative and uninspiring sound bites.

That’s why we love a dirty campaign. We need it to take the edge off the grinding monotony of the race for an office nobody really cares about.

However, come back in 50 years time and whoever’s running for the Áras then will still be talking about building bloody bridges.