Presidency is a solemn seat, not a football for political opportunists

IF Packie Bonner runs for Fianna Fáil in the European Elections, as is rumoured, it will be the political stroke of the year. And further proof that ‘location, location and location’ is as important in politics as it is in property.

Bonner has dismissed such speculation as "absolute nonsense". But it's early days yet. The fact is, the North-West constituency (formerly known as Connacht-Ulster but now including County Clare) poses problems for FF.

Pat 'The Cope' Gallagher topped the poll in 1999 but their second candidate, Noel Treacy was beaten into fifth place by the victorious Dana Rosemary Scallon and her fellow independent Marian Harkin. When Gallagher then accepted a Junior Ministry after the last General Election, giving up his Euro-seat to the largely unknown Seán Ó Neachtain, the prospect of FF retrieving that second seat looked remote.

Packie, however, would be tailor-made to take out Dana something which would bring no end of joy to those FF activists whose 'family values' robes she stole last time out. If voters flocked to Dana in 1999 partly because they remembered the young teenager who won Eurovision for Ireland, they're highly unlikely to reject the hero of Italia '90 now.

There are other parallels. Dana may have sung for the Pope but Packie has met him too he spoke glowingly of the experience after the Irish soccer team attended a papal audience during the World Cup campaign of 1990. Most of all, Packie is every bit as desirable, geographically, as Dana. He is as far away from Ó Neachtain's Conamara heartland as could be, making him a vote-manager's dream. He could go around the constituency like a hoover picking up votes all over the place.

Stroke politics? Maybe. But why shouldn't celebrities and alternative candidates run for office? Indeed, voters are more ready to give such candidates the benefit of the doubt in European elections, as Dana and, before her, Patricia McKenna and Nuala Ahern of the Green Party proved.

It's not like that in Presidential Elections. Although Dana secured the nomination of the County Councils in 1997 and attracted 14% of the vote, Adi Roche's campaign collapsed disastrously. If there was a lesson to be learned, it was that founders of charitable causes and folk-heroes are not shoe-ins for the Presidency.

You would think Labour had learned that lesson, post-Adi. But no. On last Sunday's This Week programme, Pat Rabbitte was being suitably coy about the possibility of Mary Davis, the chief executive of the Special Olympics in Ireland, being a candidate for Labour in November. Pat had to be careful because Michael D Higgins is widely believed to have worked himself up into a lather of sweat in his eagerness to run for the job, and it would be disloyal of Pat to discourage him at this stage.

As it happens, Mary Davis has since indicated that she won't oppose Mary McAleese if the latter wants a second term. But, judging by Pat's comments on Sunday, it was clear that Ms Davis was Definitely Under Consideration.

It's all too undignified. Since when did the Presidency of Ireland become a sort of honours system for nice people? Isn't that what the People of the Year Awards are for? And what does it say about personalities who run for the Presidency on the back of their good works? Aren't their causes demeaned by it? Shouldn't virtue be its own reward?

However, Pat Rabbitte's This Week interview, in which he referred to the Presidency as an "electoral opportunity", revealed a political attitude that has very little to do with virtue, and much to do with 'location, location, location'.

This time, it's a question of political location of Labour positioning itself as the main opposition to Fianna Fáil. The party is in a better position than Fine Gael to run a candidate and has much less to lose. What's more, Labour wants to be the sole, authoritative voice of the Left in Ireland. They may fear a scenario wherein Mary McAleese decides to run for a second term and the Greens, Independents and perhaps Sinn Féin cobble together a left-wing candidacy of their own maybe David Norris.

Labour, of course, has every right to contest the Presidency if it wants to. But why? Last Sunday, Pat Rabbitte was mute on the subject of Mary McAleese's failings. He did not quibble with the President's high approval rating of 84%, or offer any grounds to suggest it was undeserved. Instead, he talked of campaigning in a positive way which presumably means that since Labour can't find any grounds for criticism of Mary McAleese, they will confine themselves to enumerating the virtues of their own candidate.

ARE we to take it then that Labour will put the country to the hassle and expense of an election, even if by common consent and the silent agreement of the Labour Party itself Mary McAleese has been good for this country?

That McAleese should be denied a second term, even if she has promoted reconciliation on the island, even if she speaks eloquently for us in times of crisis and represents us with dignity abroad?

There can be no quibbling at a presidential challenge when there is considerable opposition to the incumbent. But the paradox of the Presidency is that even a successful President who fosters unity among people can fall prey to selfish political interests.

The irony is that the McAleese presidency has outdone that of her predecessor, a Labour candidate. Amidst all the hype over the mould-breaking nature of Mary Robinson's presidency, one central truth was conveniently ignored. Mary Robinson used her office selfishly to advance political views of her own, sometimes against the current of Irish public opinion. For example, during the divorce referendum. President McAleese has never tried to foist her views on us. She resembled Robinson in many ways career achievement, intelligence and strongly-held views but surpassed her predecessor in warmth, charisma and application to the job. Robinson, after all, left prematurely to take a big job at the UN.

Now Labour wants to repeat the Robinson experiment. And they may be offering us the truly terrifying prospect of President Michael D Higgins.

Michael D would be about as appropriate for Áras an Uachtaráin as that other left-wing favourite, David Norris. Both are nice, intelligent and sincere people in their own way. Occasionally poetic. But they are also loud and divisive figures potential candidates with more symbolic value than gravitas. They might not bring the office of President into disrepute but they would certainly demean it.

Yet Labour and the Independents are tempted by the idea of left-wing, liberal campaigners making it to the Presidency. Of course, they will talk about inclusiveness I could write the script but the real agenda would be to advance the causes most cherished by the individuals involved.

Michael D is a champion of left-wing economics and anti-American foreign policy. It would be hard to imagine him containing himself if George W Bush came to visit. David Norris, for his part, would not be able to resist sharing his liberal opinions on sexuality and God-knows-what at every available opportunity. The point, on this occasion, is not whether their views are right or wrong. It is that the office of the President would be hopelessly and perversely politicised.

If either of those guys is nominated, then the county councillors should nominate Packie Bonner. Just to be on the safe side.