Mick Clifford: Michael D Higgins's words have consequences

The President's popularity is unquestionable but his successor should not use the office to openly criticise policy

At the recent BT Young Scientist & Technology Exhibition, President Michael D Higgins criticised Nato's call for more spending on armaments.

I once saw Michael D Higgins give a talk about the evolution of the global political economy from Bretton Woods, the agreement hatched by the allies after the Second World War. 

He went through the Cold War onto the oil crisis of the 1970s, the neoclassical Chicago school of economics, Thatcherism, the growth of neoliberalism, and the banking collapse, before eventually arriving in one piece at the present day. 

It was tough going. I began to drift around 1973 and was lost soon thereafter.

The gathering was not one of economic historians or political undergraduates but was instead drawn from community groups and small NGOs around the country. Michael D was beloved by this audience. They obviously listened more intently than I did because during a tea break there was consensus that it had been a brilliant speech. I supped my tea and nodded sagely. Absolutely, I agreed, pure class. 

From where I stood, it appeared as if the President could expound on complex philosophy or lapse into Trumpesque gibberish and he would still be brilliant, such was, and is, his widespread popularity.

The sun is beginning to set on Michael D’s presidency. Next November his 14-year stint will be at an end. On one level, it would be difficult to conceive a CV more suited to the role than his. He is a poet, which is, in my opinion, a real bonus for a titular head of state anywhere, not to mind on this island renowned for its imagination as expressed through the written word.

He is an intellectual, albeit one who might have a wee problem in choosing when to soar to the heights known to his kindred spirits and when it might be more advisable to stick closer to ground level. Still, no harm in a man who can talk for Ireland

He is a former politician, and minister for arts, familiar with the constitution and imbued with a firm grasp of state affairs. And he is capable of genuine empathy for those in society who have been marginalised, disregarded, or abused in one form or another. Throughout his tenure, he has hosted and developed initiatives around history, culture and a range of societal concerns, all of which have added hugely to the health of the spirit of the nation. He will, in all these respects, be an extremely difficult act to follow.

Open criticism

Then there is the other stuff, most recently in the last two weeks. Now and again he has used his office to have a pop. Government policy on issues like housing has been in his sights. This was characterised in some corners of the media and academia as an egotistical encroachment across the constitutional divide. Yet nobody in government has ever criticised him for this simply because they are scared stiff of his popularity.

One of many such instances occurred at an event in June 2022 when he expressed outrage at the housing crisis and questioned the policy.

The Housing Minister Darragh O’Brien felt obliged to respond. O’Brien is answerable to the electorate for how he uses his executive function. The President has no executive function in this respect. What if a successor were to suggest that opposition politicians were exacerbating the housing crisis by habitually objecting to development? Would those who cheered on the current incumbent’s every utterance howl for an immediate resignation?

In 2024, he hit a low when he described Waterford woman and Oxford academic Louise Richardson as having a “very large letter DBE” attached to her name. 

Michael D Higgins apologised for his 'throwaway remark' about Louise Richardson's status as a Dame Commander of the British Empire (DBE). Picture: Larry Cummins

Richardson had been appointed to chair a forum examining Ireland’s current neutrality model. The President’s reference was an inference that she might do the bidding of the Nato-aligned UK in her deliberations. 

He apologised soon after for “any offence he may have inadvertently caused” with a “throwaway remark”. It’s difficult to see a man as erudite throwing away any words.

The government had enacted the forum to reflect recent global developments, including the war in Ukraine. 

The President, speaking on his own behalf and not that of the Irish people, was obviously throwing stones at the decision of politicians elected to formulate policy. 

What if a successor of his suggested that this country would be better served joining Nato? Would those who applaud his interpretation of neutrality suddenly declare a constitutional crisis?

Nato remarks

Nato was on his mind again 10 days ago at the Young Scientist Exhibition when he lashed out at the “recent appalling comments from Nato calling for ever more armaments spending to be achieved”. Among those who criticised the remarks was the former president of Estonia, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, who mentioned Ireland’s “privileged geography” in relation to Russia. There was also a reference that Ireland enjoys the tacit protection of Nato.

Estonia spent the Cold War under the jackboot of the Russian politburo and Vladamir Putin has the cut of a man who would like to see those days return. Once again, Michael D was indulging his office to posit his personal opinions, this time effectively lecturing to people living in the shadow of a belligerent neighbour.

All of which brings us to objections this week to the President attending the national Holocaust Memorial Day commemoration. Both the chair of the Jewish Representative Council of Ireland and the Chief Rabbi in the country feel he should not address the gathering. They cite “misinformation” he has spread and that he has shown no empathy for a rise in antisemitism in this country.

The charges are highly questionable. 

The President’s spokesperson has refuted them and stated that he will attend. There is a case to be made that the whole farrago is another example of the deliberate conflation of antisemitism with criticism of Israel for its wanton killing in Gaza.

One way or the other, it is not a good look for the country, internally or externally, that senior Irish figures, who subscribe to a world religion, are treating the head of state in this manner. 

Would the same lobby have attempted to cancel the previous incumbent Mary McAleese if she had made the same points as Michael D about the slaughter in Gaza? Has the President said anything more strident about it than what has been issued from Simon Harris as taoiseach? It is difficult to envisage the same attempted snub of figures like McAleese and Harris.

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here

The problem is that Michael D has made a habit of utterances that can be interpreted as politicising the office. Having lowered himself into the political arena, some might view it as exposing the office as fair game for political attack if it is seen that profit can be gained from doing so. That does no favours for the institution of the presidency and by extension the State.

Whoever follows Michael D Higgins will have a tough time matching his popularity, garnered for the greatest part through how he has conducted himself and used his attributes to enhance the office. 

Let’s hope his immediate or following successors don’t see his tenure as opening the door to sounding off on matters that are better left unsaid emanating from Áras An Uachtaráin.