Real change demands engagement

Several events over the last few days showed how, and probably why, so many of us have become disengaged from the political process despite the unattractive consequences of that indulgence. As this disengagement accelerates it leads to a growing disenchantment that, like it or not, can only be resolved by engagement.

The starkest example of this disconnect was the turnout in the Dublin South West bye-election where only 34.49% of those entitled to vote thought it worth the effort. That those voters elected a candidate from outside the political establishment, as did Roscommon South Leitrim, adds to the fragmentation and ineffectiveness of the Dáil. It will contribute to the political fumbling and non-delivery that makes alternatives to established parties seem attractive.

At the other end of the spectrum something approaching 100,000 people marched in Dublin to protest at water charges having failed to convince any of the established parties that we, almost uniquely in the developed world, should be exempt from the charges. This anger is partially provoked by the speed with which Irish Water aped its predecessors in the semi-state sector by shamelessly embracing a bonus culture absolutely unimaginable to the vast majority of workers. Despite the numbers who marched, and despite concessions expected in today’s budget, it should be remembered that the vast majority of people rejected similar protests around property tax and quietly recognised the reality of our situation and paid the charge. It is reasonable to expect a similar response on water charges.

Nevertheless the march was a strong statement but it was a protest rather than an engagement and whether it leads to any real change remains to be seen. This confusion of one with the other was a theme taken up by European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly when she spoke in Dublin at the weekend. She encouraged people to be assertive and demanding in the run-in to the general election and the 1916 centenary warning that “comfort and complacency dented our civic obligation to question — to demand a proper accounting for the ultimately ruinous decisions that were being taken” during the Celtic Tiger and in its aftermath.

The consequences of that failure were unerlined by Bank of England governor Mark Carney at the International Monetary Fund’s annual meeting in Washington. He warned that one crisis legacy was that the individuals who ran banks “got away with their compensation packages, they got away without sanction ... they’re still at the best golf courses. That has to change”. Remember, Mr Carney is the governor of the Bank of England, not a member of People Before Profit.

Today’s budget will be a high-wire exercise between economic and political necessities and one set of demands does not always complement the other. It may or may not be the last budget before an election so the window of opportunity for the establishment parties to show that they are capable of real change to try to reverse the dangerous disengagement threatening their legitimacy and their ability to govern effectively and fairly is already closing.