A real leader is needed but how likely are we to get them now?

On the water charges, we should acknowledge the failure and suspend payment for five years, writes Fergus Finlay

TWO questions. Does anyone really want to govern this little country of ours? And secondly, what is all this guff about new politics?

New politics, you’d have thought, involves leadership and vision. More to the point, it involves a willingness to do business out in the open, and a sense of honesty about mistakes. All we’ve had, since the election, is the usual mooching around behind dark windows.

The cute politicians we elected are all “keeping their powder dry”, because that’s what cute politicians do.

So, we’re supposed to be electing a Ceann Chomhairle on Thursday. It’s an innovation (not a revolution, as described by some), because any member of the Dáil who has the support of seven others can put themselves forward, and then there’ll be an election by secret ballot. Independent TD Maureen O’Sullivan looks like a likely candidate and will announce her decision today, while Independent TD Denis Naughten will put himself forward if she does not. Fianna Fáil has selected Kildare South TD Seán Ó Fearghail as its candidate. Sinn Féin is said to be supporting Caoimhín Ó Chaoláin.

But the pressing point is that there has been little discussion of what the prospective candidates would like to do with the job — how they’d like to make it different, how they would see themselves contributing to a fuller role for our national parliament.

The prime consideration for nominations is likely to be whether nominating someone for the office could result in numbers being reduced on the floor of the Dáil. That’s why the largest party in the parliament is unlikely to allow any of its members to contest.

In other words, the new politics is pretty much the same as the old politics. It’s not about reform, it’s about tactics.

Then we’ll move on to the bigger issue of the day, the election of a taoiseach. As of now, three candidates will go forward. None of them will win. In all probability, none of them will even speak. None of them will stand there and say, I want to be Taoiseach. And here’s why.

The horse-trading will start, behind closed doors. Little by little, a programme of government will begin to emerge. There will be endless leaks, and probably almost as many denials, about what’s in it, who’s supporting it, what election promises are being abandoned. As time goes by, and the formation of a government gets closer, the leaks will be all about who’s in and who’s out, who are the winners and the losers in Cabinet formation.

The media, of course, will have great fun. Every day there’ll be a headline about Enda Kenny’s “desperate bid to cling on to power”. Many of the same newspapers will have editorials demanding that he make whatever compromise is necessary, in the national interest, to form a government. He’ll be every night thinking he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.

Enda Kenny

Here’s the thing though. The election is over. The people of Ireland have made a decision. It’s a complicated and subtle decision. For example, they clearly rejected Fine Gael’s campaign message and the core of their election platform — the total abolition of the USC — but they kept Fine Gael as the largest party.

They clearly offered Fianna Fáil a significant measure of forgiveness for the past, and perhaps sent them a message that they might be fit again for government in one more election, but not just yet.

They rejected everything the Labour Party had to offer, but kept the party alive. They liked the cut of Sinn Féin’s jib, but were slightly put off by something about them. And the people exercised their right to protest, by electing more protestors than ever before.

In overall terms, the people made an angry, but entirely coherent, decision. Faced with a decision like that, is there, do you think, the remotest possibility that a leader might stand up in the Dáil and say something like the following:

“First of all, I acknowledge the anger in the people’s recent decision. I believe they were angry because we failed to get everything right in the last four years. Cuts were necessary, but some of them were unnecessarily harsh. The proper development of our water system is necessary, but we went about it the wrong way.

"But perhaps above all, when there was growth again in the economy, we failed to recognise that there were many things in our community that the people wanted addressed as the first priority. We offered tax cuts when people wanted better, more accessible and more compassionate services.

“So we got it wrong. In the next five years, we have to concentrate instead on seeking to govern in the interests of the whole people. That’s why I have decided to publish a platform for government that takes account of the real needs of our society.

"We will set out to fix the things that really need to be fixed, and we will implement much more modest tax cuts, to enable resources to be applied where they are most needed.”

Of course, if a leader in the current situation wants to attract support, he has to be prepared to negotiate. But not in secret, and not from a blank sheet of paper that basically says “whatever you’re having yourself”. Instead, a real leader, someone who wants to govern, would now be publishing a core document that sets out principles, but also acknowledges the real priorities demanded by the people on election day.

On water, it would acknowledge failure and suspend payment for five years, until a proper and accountable infrastructure is in place. On regeneration (both urban and rural), an issue which dominated the election right down the western seaboard and in other places, it would put forward a radical, community-based programme and a Cabinet level post.

A transformative leadership platform would make it an absolute priority to end homelessness, especially among families with children, within two years. That can only happen if a single agency is given the power and the resources to do it.

The platform would also begin to address the needs of children in disadvantaged areas, people with disabilities, travellers and elderly people, perhaps through the establishment of a government department of social and community care with real critical mass, and through the development (at last) of real rights in law for people who cope with disadvantage.

A leadership document would also embrace parliamentary and other reform with enthusiasm, and not in the grudging way we’re used to. It would set out to genuinely open parliament up as a place where law can be initiated, the executive kept on its toes, and the aspirations of people highlighted.

The real fear at the moment seems to be that a minority government would be held hostage, and that the opposition would determine when the next election is going to happen.

A leader who wanted to govern would be throwing down the gauntlet, by saying “these are the things I’m going to do — support me or vote against me”. Let’s not have the usual old game of musical chairs. Let’s have a bit of imagination and real leadership instead.

On the water charges, we should acknowledge the failure and suspend payment for five years