An intriguing feature of the party manifestos for the June European and local elections was the way in which all used the words "fair", "inclusive" and "equal" to describe their political aspirations, writes Paula Clancy
In a recent interview with Matt Cooper of Today FM, the Tánaiste, Mary Harney, again made positive reference to the goal of an "inclusive" society.
One could be forgiven for thinking that there is universal consensus on this issue, and that we inhabit a world where everyone is striving at all times to the same noble ends.
The truth is, however, that there is no common agreement on these issues. So in his recent statements on the issue of equality, Michael McDowell has done us a service by alerting us to real differences in values and ideology, and by demonstrating that the goal of creating an equal society is not shared.
This is important. The issue is not just academic: we should understand clearly the views of those who, through their positions in Government, have the power to shape fundamentally our society.
Mr McDowell was quoted as saying that "a dynamic liberal economy like ours demands flexibility and inequality in some respects to function" since such inequality "provides incentives".
Ms Harney, in the radio interview, dubbed "unfortunate" the use of that unambiguous word "unequal". I disagree: it is when politicians speak with two voices that we have a problem.
Both Mr McDowell's statement and Ms Harney's elaboration are useful, articulating as they do an ideological position that strongly influences Government policy decisions.
She supports a society based on principles of "meritocracy" and "equality of opportunity"; one where people who are "fitter", "brighter", "work harder" or are "more skilful" should be rewarded.
On the face of it, the ideology of meritocracy is very appealing. It suggests that "ability" and "effort" should be rewarded above all else: social origins should have no impact on who rises to the top.
However, from numerous studies at home and abroad, we know that in practice this is not the case. As well as people who live in poverty, many groups - women, those living with disability, particular ethnic communities, etc. - simply do not have equal opportunity, and for sure do not get their proportional share of society's resources.
And just this week we learn that, far from reducing the scale of these inequalities, we are actually moving in the opposite direction. Even though the country has now entered the top 10 in the UN's quality-of-life league, the UNDP report for 2004 shows that there has been no improvement in the lives of those on low incomes in Ireland over the last six years. Hardly an indicator for the inclusive society to which we all, including the Tánaiste, claim to aspire.
Granting people equal rights to compete for social goods without providing them with the resources to achieve them means they are competing in a game they cannot win. In the absence of equal resources, especially in the form of money, but also good quality healthcare, housing, education etc, a generation will never get off the blocks.
The children who cannot afford the grinds, summers in the Gaeltacht, exchanges to France and Germany, are unlikely to get to the point where the talents for which they could potentially be rewarded are developed.
It is no surprise then that, outperformed by those who have these advantages, they do not figure with the same frequency among the ranks of Ms Harney's brightest and best.
Mr McDowell's support for inequality as a necessary dynamic for economic development is consistent with the ideological primacy accorded by his party to market values. But it is not based on empirical evidence.
On the contrary, a new book, Equality: From Theory to Action*, from the UCD equality studies centre, shows not only that growing inequality will impede growth in the long-term, but that it also produces political alienation and political instability, leading to an impoverished quality of life for everyone in society. And in the short-term there are increased costs in healthcare, social welfare and domestic security.
All of this raises important questions not only for the Minister for Justice and the Tánaiste, but also for Fianna Fáil, their colleagues in Government. How does Mr McDowell's view affect his commitment to equality legislation?
How can Ms Harney be committed to social inclusiveness at the same time as subscribing to an elitist view of human capability?
What implications are there for Government strategies for combating social exclusion in such diverse institutions as the partnership process, the National Action Plan against Poverty and Social Exclusion, the European anti-poverty programme, the Lisbon Strategy, the European constitution?
Clarity on such matters would be a good starting point. Inclusiveness hinges on probing these issues so that people can unpick those party manifestos, and choose their policies and politicians accordingly.
*John Baker, Kathleen Lynch, Sara Cantillon and Judy Walsh (2004), Equality: From Theory to Action - Palgrave MacMillan, New York. www. palgrave.com
Paula Clancy is director of TASC, a think-tank for action on social change.