Sir, – Justin Morahan's advocacy (February 8th) for a government of Independent TDs represents an unfortunate misappraisal of the reality of legislative work and a misunderstanding of the pivotal role that political parties often play in democracy.
Political parties have emerged independently in democracies across the world, in political systems as diverse as the fragmented and decentralised presidential system of the US, the federal but executive-driven system of Germany and the unitary parliamentary system of our neighbours in Britain, which bears some resemblance to our own in this respect.
Indeed, even in the European Parliament, in a political system so divorced from our conventional understandings of politics as firmly within the boundaries of the nation state, where national allegiances make fragmentation so easy, one still finds that political parties, and relatively strong ones at that, have emerged.
This is not an unfortunate accident that has somehow tripped up legislators the world over and fooled them into surrendering their principles and the interests of their constituents, but rather a sophisticated and tested solution to the complicated reality of government. In the various legislatures of the world prior to the development of parties, the process of law-making was unpredictable in the extreme, with the policy outcome inevitably conforming to the preferences of the median legislator, the individual in parliament whose goals were exactly in the middle of everyone else’s.
Predicting who will be the median legislator proves impossible the more complicated and multi-faceted the issues become, effectively granting agenda-setting power to a random individual with each new proposal. This is potentially injurious for democracy when that particular individual is in no way affiliated with any party or movement that has been the subject of national approval or scrutiny.
Political parties allow voters in specific constituencies to translate their votes for individual candidates into broader statements of support for a programme of policies. When legislators cohere into parties, they can control agenda-setting power with a greater claim to legitimacy, because their policies have been put to the entire nation, unlike the policies of an atomistic median legislator chosen at random by circumstance.
Contrary to Mr Morahan’s assertion, reference to a “stable government” does not simply mean one controlled by the party whip, but also one that has something of a more national focus, rather than the necessarily more localised leanings of Independent TDs.
While not questioning the integrity and commitment of Independent TDs, to trust them to cohere spontaneously around national policy interests is to trust them to defy both a natural sympathy with their constituents and an overwhelming electoral incentive to prioritise their needs at the expense of the nation’s. Because political parties operate as institutions at a national level, they are forced to be more circumspect in their policy goals.
Furthermore, political parties can share out legislative work and achieve more attenuated policy specialisation and specific expertise.
Ultimately, while a government of angelic, unattached Independents might be a lofty aim, it is perhaps more realistic in this country, as in many others, to create institutions that limit what already is an intensely local focus at the heart of Irish politics.
We are among the only countries in the world where Independent candidates have so flourished, and history may not cast us all too favourably on that ground. There are many things wrong with the way in which politics is conducted in this country and that ought to be improved. Thus while we should allow free votes on some legislation, strengthen cross-party committees, or favour small, emergent parties untainted by disastrous terms in office, to ameliorate our political woes, we should not abandon the institution of the party. – Yours, etc,
CHRISTOPHER
McMAHON,
Castleknock,
Dublin 15.
Sir, – Now we are in election mode, I note with humour the great concern the current government has for pensioners. This is the same government that did a smash and grab on the pension funds of anyone in the country who had taken the government’s advice and set up a personal pension fund or was in receipt of a personal pension. It was disguised by our Minister for Finance as a levy on the insurance industry but what really happened was it was passed on by the industry to all the future and current pension holders. This is a permanent reduction, and while the levy is now abolished, the pension is reduced forever to cover the payment.
This was then copper-fastened by our Minister for Social Protection who rushed through legislation to allow pensions in payment to be reduced and had it signed into law on a Christmas Eve.
Her interpretation of the relevant EU directive was that pensions in payment could be reduced, while other EU countries, such as the UK, legislated that pensions in payment could not be reduced. So much for being concerned about pensioners. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN DENT,
Swords,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – With an election campaign in full swing, the letter by Marese Hickey (February 9th) is a timely reminder that promises by politicians of various hues on improvements to the health and other public services are hollow unless they address the fundamental processes deployed in services.
In order to keep social services in the public domain and out of the hands of vulture capitalists, serious reform is required. This will involve some difficult decisions on all sides, but these hard choices will ensure the public services will in the future be about the provision of a social dividend rather than a financial one for shareholders.
If the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement gets approved in its current guise, the provision of public services across Europe will come under pressure to be privatised, and any vulnerable systems, such as many in this country, will be ripe for exploitation.
So rather than just accept the promises of more resources, beds, and funds from our candidates, we should also demand that significant funding be set aside for a large-scale project whose remit will be to review the requirements for the various public services, including projections of future needs, and design a system to meet these in the most efficient and cost-effective manner.
The result should be a system that provides equal access to all to a robust healthcare system, well-resourced education, and social services designed to cope with a 24/7 society.
More than anything it needs to be a connected system where technology allows for each service to understand quickly the level of engagement any recipient of social services has with any agency of the State. It should generate easily accessible metrics and data on the performance of these systems so any issues can be rectified expeditiously.
It will mean a significant change in the deployment of resources, and therein lies the challenge, but we can’t go on pretending that it is okay to service an antiquated bureaucracy whilst being short of frontline staff.
This is not something that will happen overnight but it can be done. The NHS in Britain still stands as an example of a system that was created in time of crisis and that, despite many challenges, has stood the test of time. Surely in this country, with our much-vaunted technological savvy and educated workforce, we can design a system of public service that is fit for purpose.
We should no longer accept short-term electioneering from our candidates but real ideas of substance. – Yours, etc,
BARRY WALSH,
Blackrock,
Cork.
Sir, – Is it not remarkable that dealing with climate change did not feature in the TV3 leaders’ debate. Nor have I seen sight of the issue in manifestos dropping through my letterbox.
Yet it is the single greatest challenge facing Ireland in the coming years for we must transform our entire economy to achieve a 40 per cent reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
Is there consensus on how to achieve this transformation between the main parties or did I miss something? – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL HAMELL,
Dublin 9