Dana should forget the Britney Spears approach and go local

THERE are many points of contrast between Dana and Britney Spears, but not the least of them is this: Dana knows how to keep herself in the public eye without doing anything indecent.

It is a well-established fact in showbiz that a singer whose popularity is waning needs to do something outrageous. Not long ago, Britney's record sales were in need of a boost. So what did she do? She kissed Madonna during a performance at the 2003 MTV Music Video Awards.

'That kiss', as it became known, was enough to get a fickle public buzzing again. Attention was drawn away from the flagging record sales. In fact, with all the publicity they got, the records were soon selling like hot cakes again.

Dana could achieve an effect just as dramatic by finding four county councils to nominate her for President. A run for the Park, even if unsuccessful, could put her centre-stage again. It looks unlikely.

Dana is not the surprise packet she was seven years ago and this time the county councils are not out to make a point.

All is not lost for those who believe there should be a presidential election. The Greens may yet embarrass Labour into supporting Eamon Ryan's bid. Supporters of Dana will be disappointed. Yet in terms of the causes which propelled her into politics it is difficult to see what good her candidacy would do anyway.

Seven years ago Dana rocked the political system when she became the first presidential candidate to be nominated by the county councils. With that master stroke she electrified her own conservative constituency and appealed to genuine liberals who resented the way the political parties had tried to shut her out. As the anti-establishment candidate she fought a clever campaign full of unifying sentiment and witty one-liners. When she captured 14% of the vote, finishing third, she was seen remarkably as one of the winners.

Her election to the European Parliament in 1999 put an even bigger smile on the face of social conservatives, quite a sizeable chunk of Irish society, because Dana had proven in Ireland what Ronald Reagan and his Republican successors proved in America that if you widen your political base and reach out to floating voters, social conservatism is no barrier to political success.

She started off well in Europe, wrong-footing political opponents by getting herself in to the European Peoples Party grouping of MEPs.

Publicity was her strong suit. On a range of issues support for pro-life and pro-family legislation and opposition to cloning, embryonic stem-cell research and further European integration, Dana knew what she wanted to say and how to get people listening.

In the end, though, she failed to harness an agenda for change to her celebrity status. She didn't network properly with other politicians.

Rightly or wrongly, many felt alienated by what they saw as her purer-than-thou style and attention-grabbing performance. Worse than that, there was no well-oiled political machine because she relied too much on her family. She appointed her brother, John Brown, to run her show. He saw his job as promoting his sister's cause in all things. What was good for Dana was good for the country. But other activists chafed at this.

They joined Dana because they believed the issues came first. But soon they were wondering. They felt out of the loop, used and alienated. Many of Dana's closest collaborators between 1997 and 2002 started off loving her and ended up deeply opposed to her.

Dana and her family handlers couldn't see that she had to make the transition from celebrity to political operator. When you're a celebrity, everybody has to bend over backwards to keep you happy. When you're a politician, the roles are reversed. It is now your job to keep your political base happy. You must lead them, yes. But you must take them where they want to go.

HER performance during the abortion referendum in early 2002 still divides the pro-life constituency. Some believe she opposed the referendum on principle, that she simply wasn't convinced that the referendum would help the pro-life cause. Others say she opposed the referendum out of pique because she wasn't consulted by the Government. There are even those who think she opposed the referendum because she wanted abortion to be a touchstone issue in that year's general election, a means for her to harness the support of various independent candidates under her leadership. A successful referendum would scupper all that. Dana felt undermined by the Government's handling of the referendum. Some of the pro-life networks close to her had been in on the proposal before her. And some months previously, she had organised meetings with various independent TDs to rally them on a pro-life platform in the run-up to the elections. It hadn't led to very much because the independents were annoyed to find news of supposedly private meetings being leaked to the press.

In the end, her opposition to the abortion referendum in 2002 may have been sincere but she had lost touch with her political base. The consequences were apparent when she lost her European seat this year, her share of the vote falling slightly from 16.92% in 1999 to 13.52%. Clearly, she remained a celebrity with huge vote- pulling power, especially among traditionally-minded voters. But many of the people who helped her so much in 1999, charging around the constituency, sticking up posters and generating momentum, were gone. They were voting for Marian Harkin or Seán Ó Neachtain.

Now she wants to run again. But why? To debate the new European constitution? The presidential election is hardly the place to do it.

Traditional values? Mary McAleese seems to have cornered the market there by repeatedly emphasizing Ireland's Christian heritage at home and abroad.

In fact, the McAleese presidency serves as a good illustration of where Dana went wrong. McAleese is a pragmatic traditionalist. In her own distinctive style she promotes values of faith, solidarity, family and community. She doesn't alienate people in the way she does it. So what's broken that Dana needs to fix? What can she achieve that McAleese can't? More protection for the unborn? A reference to God in the European constitution? These decisions are not taken in the Phoenix Park.

At best it's a lack of realism that has Dana running for President. At worse it's a Britney-like attempt to woo the public. She has an enviable support base 56,000 electors spread out from Donegal to Clare. But if she really wants to advance traditional values in Ireland, she should abandon her great national drama to pursue local politics. Build a political base and use her celebrity to grow it. Clarify her ideas. Build alliances with politicians that don't just revolve around her.

No more celebrity stuff please, Dana. Stop selling illusions to the conservative voter.