Two populists who are set to lead

LAST week two party leaders, Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore, were branded as populists for proposing to get rid of the Seanad and “Junket” John O’Donoghue, respectively.

To be seen as a populist has been a bad thing since the Roman Republic, but why? If populism means putting the interests of the ordinary people above those of the political class, isn’t that what our elected leaders are supposed to be doing?

There is a depressing habit in all organisations that they, their members and privileges must be protected at all costs, even when criticisms are warranted and when the actions of some members bring the organisation into disrepute. The political class is no exception.

For weeks, despite a litany of examples of the princely, taxpayer-funded lifestyle of Junket John, the political class hid behind the excuse of protecting the dignity and independence of the office of Ceann Comhairle, oblivious to the damage that Junket John was doing to the same office. For decades, despite using the Seanad as the wooden spoon prize for political failures, the political class hid behind the excuse that an ineffectual upper house of electoral losers and no-hopers somehow provides checks and balances on the lower house and the executive, oblivious to the damage that this mindset does to their own credibility and that of the Oireachtas.

In telling the Seanad and Junket John respectively to pack their bags both Kenny and Gilmore have shown the political courage and leadership that has been sorely absent in Ireland for years, and proves they are ready to lead. For this apparent treason and heresy against their own in the political class, Kenny and Gilmore have been branded as populists.

If populism means listening to the people while simultaneously giving the political class a good kicking, then being branded a populist can only be seen as the height of praise and a good example for other politicians to follow.

Jason Fitzharris

Rivervalley

Swords

Co Dublin