Within the next four months, we, the sovereign people of the Republic, will be permitted a brief moment of self-government by being allowed to vote for candidates to parliament. Then it may be another five years before we are allowed into what is known as the democratic process and again permitted to vote for a hot-potch of candidates and policies, writes Vincent Browne
But at least we have this occasional once-off opportunity to exert our sovereignty, albeit in a largely symbolic fashion, and we should make the best of it.
Indeed, if we were to make the best of it we would insist on a change in this procedure, giving us far more meaningful participation in the government of ourselves.
And wouldn't you expect at least some of the public discussion in the run-up to this once-off-every-five-years-democracy to focus on the form of that democracy and how it could be made more relevant?
But not a bit of it. No discussion about our democracy at all. No unease on the part of the populace at how marginalised they are in their own self-government. How is that?
And another thing We, as a society, have created fairly massive wealth here in the last decade.
All the wealth created was created on the basis of social co-operation. It is our wealth - that is, it is society's wealth and society is entitled to do with that wealth as it thinks fit. Yes, society might well think it is prudent to reward some people more than others to ensure the generation of further wealth through incentives (some others of us have doubts about that, but let's agree to leave that issue aside for the purposes of this discussion). But since wealth is derived from social co-operation, society is entitled to decide now that wealth should be distributed.
This is a pretty serious issue, especially in a society that is so unequal now. Did you notice recent data produced by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI)? This was in a publication entitled Work Incentives, Poverty and Welfare in Ireland published last December. It might have slipped your mind, so allow me remind you.
If you have a copy of it handy, just turn to page 42.
Here it shows the results of the most comprehensive recent study of rates of child poverty in rich countries as reported by Unicef. The table on that page shows the rates of income poverty for children in rich countries. Denmark comes top of the list, then come the other Scandinavian countries, followed by the Czech Republic, Switzerland, France, on down seven more places to Greece, then Poland, Australia and Canada, followed by the UK, and Portugal.
And on this list of 26 countries, Ireland comes 22nd. Only New Zealand, Italy, the US and Mexico rate worse than Ireland.
Now, isn't that quite an achievement?
Over on the next page, there is a table of poverty rates for the 15 EU countries for 2004 (that is before the recent enlargement that let in Poland and the rest).
The country that was the least unequal (sorry for the double negative) was Norway followed, again, by the other Scandinavian countries, then on down to France, Belgium, Germany, the UK and, right at the bottom, actually second from the bottom, is Ireland.
Only Portugal is worse. This was for the data on the total population.
You've seen all the recent hand-wringing about the rights of children. And we are to have a referendum in a month or so to protect the rights of children. But not a word about the inequalities children face here.
On that same page (42) and same table, the rates for children at risk of poverty is recorded. This time we come not quite at the bottom. The worst was Silvio Berlusconi's Italy (this was 2004), then Spain, Portugal and Ireland.
The second most unequal state overall and as far as children are concerned the fourth most unequal.
Wouldn't you think this would be the subject of debate in the run-up to our once-in-every-five-years input into how we are governed and how our society is run and wealth distributed?
Not a bit of it.
Instead, we have circuses and none as extravagant as the Frank Luntz extravaganza on The Week in Politics last Sunday night. Here an hour or more was given over to the ticks and antics of politics, with no discussion on issues or on anything that matters. Broadcast by our public service broadcaster.
The excellent 1st-century Roman satirist, Juvenal, was the populariser of the ploy "panem et circenses" ("bread and circuses"), the ruse to keep the Roman populace quiescent.
He wrote: "Two things only the people anxiously desire - bread and circuses." He was also the author of the satire known as Roman Wives.
The Spanish had a variant of this: "pan y toros" ("bread and bull fights").
Here, to keep the populace's mind off more serious matters, we have Frank Luntz and Desperate Housewives, not even the odd bull fight.
Pity really.