After a black, stormy, winter night, the dawn light broke through. What profound relief that we were saved from disorientation, fear and lifelessness threatened by the absence of a new national partnership agreement. Life is good again, full of warmth and light, growth and calm.
The new partnership agreement, like the concept of partnership itself, is in danger of being credited with goodness, truth and beauty. If you take the view that the deal is pragmatically good for the economy and society, then one suffers the exaggeration for the sake of the deal being ratified.
But should we be worried that the claims are real, that partnership has overtaken the right of fully representative governments to implement democratically mandated policies? The economic questions about whether the partnership deal matters at all have been well-rehearsed. In my view, those questions boil down to the following: the deal delivers predictability, it sets out what probably would have happened anyway in private-sector wages, in the National Development Plan, in social policy. As regards the public sector, it is a good thing that an orderly process of wage increases and reform is agreed for a reasonable time like 33 months. On balance, it is better than any alternative.
The more important question now is about democratic mandates. Des Geraghty let a screaming cat out of his bag on The Last Word on Tuesday when he said, "We create the framework within which government can and can't move." Allowing for the inaccuracies of live radio, this is a startling and troubling statement. If true, it points to great damage done to electoral democracy as we have known it.
I thought that voting citizens, not social partners, set the framework within which government could and couldn't move. I thought politicians set the framework within which the government system of the civil service could and couldn't move. Mr Geraghty enjoys a mandate from his members, to be sure. But not the fundamental mandate the elected government has, which ought to have priority.
How will we know if Mr Geraghty's claims are right? If he is over-egging the cake and wrongly interpreting reality, it doesn't really matter. What matters ultimately is how the elected politicians behave.
Does the deal stop the Government doing anything it really wants to do? Is there any policy which a minister wants to implement that will now not be implemented because social partnership does not "allow" it? Is there any part of the present programme for government with its electoral mandate which is ruled out by the new deal?
If not, then partnership is not at present a constraint on democracy, however anyone describes the new deal. If so, we'd better hear about it before the process stifles that dissent.
For example, in my reading, the partnership deal would not prevent the Government from cutting the tax rates down to 20 per cent and 40 per cent, if it chose to follow through on this aspect of its mandate. It does not prevent the Government from doing things over and above the terms of the deal.
Will any party put forward policies at variance with the terms of the partnership consensus at the next election? Maybe politicians' reaction would be to recoil from such radicalism, even maverickism.
But put it another way and the answer would surely be different - will any party at the next election put forward policies in any way different from those of its opponents? Of course, all politicians will say. There is something to play for, partnership or no partnership. Indeed, there should be all to play for at election time.
It is up to politicians to prove that the partnership deal does not make electoral democracy and their role redundant. For a start, they could claim credit and ownership for the partnership deal as much as union leaders and voluntary pillar people will. The perception is there to play for. The new deal could be seen as good governing by politicians. Alternatively, it could be viewed as unions, employers and the civil service rescuing the management of the State from incapable elected representatives. Most importantly, politicians should prove by their actions that the partnership process is not a constraint on decision-making and on policies they propose to the electorate. Many tough decisions remain, a lot of governing to be done, not just administering the terms of a partnership deal.
The new deal should deliver wage predictability in some sectors. It will not get the infrastructure built, which is now a top economic priority for the Republic. It will help a bit, but won't actually deliver it. Like a lot more besides, that will be a job for political management. Politicians, for their sakes and ours, should not let us forget that.
