How often do we hear that Ireland is dominated by 'Pump Parish Politics'? It seems to be a constant affliction in our country. In fact, I would go so far as to add the word pothole to the phrase, we consistently choose the politician who will fix the pothole outside our front door, rather than the one who is best placed to drive forward the country and by extension their local constituency as a whole.
Young people who tend to migrate towards cities, and tend to be more modern in their views may wonder why this is the case. Why are politicians always outside mass shaking hands, why do they promise us the sun, moon and stars, when they call to our doors? If someone is going to put a pylon on my land because it happens to be on a predefined route, can any one politician really stop this? More importantly, does the fact that I vote for someone else even matter in the grand scheme of things?
The answer to this really depends, it depends on your age, sex, where you live and so on. This all comes down to demographics.
Old people vote en masse. They are singularly the most important cohort of any election, whats more they will vote for the person who delivers the most for them, as is their right. As people live longer this is cohort is only going to become stronger, and the stronger they become the more influence they will have.
Think about this for a moment, if you are 75, you may expect to live for another 5-10 years. You've worked hard all of your life and have saved, you own your house and have a generous pension. You also live in a rural area, where the vast majority of people are over 50. Now suppose the government decides that they want to lower the rate of your pension increase, at the same time they want to build a very expensive motorway, linking 2 parts of the country, which will benefit you as you live close to the route. In your mind you might think that the reduction in your pension is paying for this motorway, and you might be right. The motorway will be completed in 8 years, the pension cut will be immediate. There is a general election in 3 months, and a pothole outside your driveway.
A sitting TD comes by your house and knocks on the door. You quiz he/she on the pension rate reduction, why is it happening? Why should you loose out? The politician explains that they plan to vote against this issue, they think that someone who has worked all their life, should have a comfortable retirement. You mention the motorway, they again say that they are against that. Pollution, noise, traffic, all bad. Finally you point at the pothole, you get a smile. 'Ah yeah we'll have that looked at ' they say. Guess who's getting your vote in a few months!
Now imagine this happening all across the country, in cities the conversation will be different, as the priorities will be different. The pension 'cut' will still be a big factor. Politicians will promise to fix it. More votes will be decided, a general election won. The motorway plan scrapped, kudos handed out at the next mass. You get the idea.
But wait you say, this isn't how a democracy works. What about all the young, hard working people, the people who have no pension, are drowned in debt, and who need that motor way to reduce their commute?
These people will of course vote, but in far lower numbers. This cohort feels a lot less connected to the government, to them their vote is just another drop in the ocean. They know the power of the grey vote or else do not realise the power of their own vote.
The grey vote could also be extended to include the NIMBY class, the Not In My Back Yard crew. They are happy for the motor way to be built... so long as it doesn't affect them in any way. If the route suddenly changes and its running right through one of their front gardens however, they might start getting upset.
In Ireland the pylon debate has been put on the back burner until after the local elections, due to this very problem. This vitally important piece of energy infrastructure, is being delayed because of the government playing politics. By delaying the decision they don't have to face angry voters in the run up to an election and potentially lose votes. I'm not saying that people should have no say in the matter, however a decision must be made. Should a pylon be built on your land, adequate compensation should be provided. Holding the entire state to account however can not be permitted. The country and its people as a whole, must come first.
To prove the power of the grey vote I will cite 2 examples. One in Ireland and one in Britain (it's not just an Irish issue).
In 2009 during the height of the global crisis the Fianna Fail coalition government had to make some drastic cuts and tax rises, to stem the state's massive overspending. This was a highly unpopular budget and caused outrage amongst many. A pensioners march was declared and a protest was formed. The result of this was to roll back some of the cuts that had hit the elderly.
The UK pension system is triple locked, this means that the pension will increase by either the rate of inflation (has been up to 5% in the past 3 years), the average rate of earnings increases or 2.5%. The highest value of these 3 will be used. That means that in 2011, pensioners got a 5% increase in their pension while average earnings increased at less than 1%. Furthermore, this has been approved for continuation into the next parliament. At a time when every department's funding (health and education aside) is being slashed, this is an incredibly generous offering.
I could cite further examples, but I think you've got the picture. The question is what can be done about it?
We could decide to bring in compulsory voting, as they do in Australia. This would have the benefit of making all cohorts equally important. Politicians would have to create a mandate, that was good for everyone in society. The motor way would most likely be built under this scenario, the pylons erected etc. Nobody could complain about the decisions being made being undemocratic, as everyone had their fair say. Politicians would be held to account by the population as a whole.
There is one problem however, Ireland fought long and hard for a democracy, we even shed blood in doing so. A democracy means everyone has the right to vote, however it similarly means everyone has the right not to vote. It is up to each and every person eligible, to make that decision. Forcing people to vote because you do not like the status quo, is not an answer. It may also lead to extreme parties picking up more seats, as they promise populist ideas that sound good on paper, but would be bad for our economy and reputation.
The best way to change the current system, is to engage with all voters. Restore faith in politics, show younger people that it's not just an old boys club. The government has made some moves towards this - the latest move is to stop the appointment of judges based on political grounds. This is to be welcomed but more needs to be done. While John Tierney may prove to be an excellent CEO of Irish Water, the process of appointing him was too opaque, and his track record has some notable blemishes (the Poolbeg incinerator). These kinds of moves do not engender the public to politicians.
Another issue I have with the political system, is that the term of government is too short. Is 5 years really enough time to make a radical change, which may in the short term be painful but in the long term beneficial? I have thought about this at length, and there is no easy solution. I have considered a situation where governments create a manifesto for a 10-15 year plan. The manifesto should then be implemented by the government, over the 10-15 years the benefits would have time to become apparent. The government would be allowed to stay in office for this period, but only once a certain % of this manifesto had been met by year 5. Lets say the figure was 80%. An external organisation such as the IMF could oversee this, and after 5 years say whether the government had met its targets. If it had not done so the government could be dissolved, and if it had done it could continue. A serious event like the financial crisis could lead a government to manually dissolve, as the manifesto would no longer be fit for purpose. The balance of power would rest with a governments TD's, who would have the power to switch allegiance should a government go 'crazy with power'. It's not an ideal solution but I feel it's a better way of making real reform and making decisions for the long run, and not constantly seeing oneself through the 5 years, until the next election. An obvious drawback is that opposition TD's would have very little power, aside from adding their weight to a debate. The system would be open to abuse, but thats currently the case anyway.
Overall politics needs to change, as globalisation spreads, and the developing nations rise there will be nowhere to hide. Those countries that have made the tough decisions will prosper, those who have not will flounder. The status quo will be nice and comfortable, until it's not. By then it will be too late to change. The hard choice is often the best one, that's why it's hard.
If you are to take anything away from this post, let it be that you have the right to vote and you should exercise this right!
Some proposals, that will never happen under the current setup, or are severely contested.
Full abortion rights - The grey vote tends to be less liberal and more religious, they will never allow for abortion as the Catholic church does not allow for it.
The right for LGBT to marry/adopt - We live in a modern society no longer dominated by the Catholic Church.
The use of nuclear power - Cheap power is going to be a key competitive issue for all countries as globalisation grows. Nuclear can be cheap and is clean to generate, disposal is a different story.
Radical pension reform and large increase of pension age - Why would the grey vote change this when it works in their favour.
The legalisation of cannabis - Why not, it would raise taxes, could be regulated and would reduce proceeds to crime and the amount of people in jail. Other countries have started to look at this already.
The legalisation of prostitution - Again this would have benefits as per the cannabis argument and would reduce sex trafficking and exploitation.
I hear you but do you really think the grey vote is that different to the general vote? Also you make it sound like there is a viable alternative to the present status quo. There isn't. I cringe when I see bills posted on lamp-posts calling for 'New Beginning' parties. It'll just be some quasi-socialist with a strong Cork accent who wants the 'rich' to pay their fair share.
ReplyDeleteIreland has proven that it does not have the calibre of person needed to form a decent government or at least our body politic cannot attract those who could do better to participate(because they are sick of seeing the wheel turning back to where it started and nothing changing). We blunder from one crisis to another, we are only playing at being a country.
I think younger voters are highly disenchanted with the government, leading many not to vote and/or leave the country. The new party idea is moot really, if younger people were to vote in greater numbers, and force issues that were important to them, the political sphere would move in tandem. A politician's main priority is to regain their seat. Whether they be the pothole fixer or the genuine reformer, they need their seat to be able to influence decisions. If more people were to put them under pressure for real changes, then the impact of the grey vote would diminish and would be less powerful. For example, if 90% of people were for no questions asked abortion, do you think FG would cling dearly to their Christian Democratic values in spite of it? Similarly it is up to us, the people, to vote in those who will make a genuine change, and not vote in the same person over and over again, because he or she is familiar to us, and is doing a half decent job.
DeletePolitical parties are just an extension of those who vote, if more people voted and made their opinions known we would see change. Likewise for the calibre of candidate. Why would you go into politics as a young reformer, if you just have to get in line and spend 20 years on the back benches, before getting a chance to influence policy. Nonetheless, we require passionate people, willing to forgo a life in the private sector (for some period of time) to step up and be counted.
We do have some excellent politicans by the way. I have been very impressed by Noonan and Howlin, and I think Leo Varadkar is one to watch. Many people think Stephen Donnelly is a man for the future also.
The turnout for the Seanad referendum for example was appalling.... Yet people think that things will change themselves. There is no secret to a functioning democracy, you vote and if you don't like the results you vote differently the next time. Abstaining from this means you endorse the status quo.
I don't agree that the new party idea is moot. In order to stimulate the mobilization of the younger voter (to counteract the pandering of politicians to the Grey Voter), trust needs to be built in the capacity of political parties to fulfill their roles as effective vehicles for representation. As things stand, with the catch-all party type that prevails in Ireland, the views and priorities of the younger demographic are inevitably diluted amongst those of the other demographics that make up a party's membership. These parties, due to their catch-all nature, are not well placed to prioritize the interests of the younger voter above that of its existing membership base. While I do agree that if more young people got involved then the political sphere would be forced to respond accordingly, what is going to mobilize them to participate in the first place? Adequate representation and the trust that this participation will count. Bit of a chicken and egg scenario. As the existing political parties can't, in my mind, act as effective representative bodies, young people (who tend to be a lot more ideological than the older voter) do not have the incentive to get involved if reform is what they are after. Smaller, more ideologically distinct, parties would do a better job of this. I'm not necessarily suggesting that the younger voter is by definition after extreme reforms, rather he/she is in need of the belief of an effective representative body to promote his/her views. A more ideologically diverse political spectrum may spur greater levels of identification among younger people and in turn greater levels of participation.
ReplyDeleteI think you hit the nail on the head with the chicken or egg! However let me put this to you, the political parties that currently hold any sort of sway, have been around for many years. We have seen others - the PD's come to mind - come and go. A new party may form, but this will take time, they will have to build trust and build a base of support etc. Whereas, if more people were to exercise their right to vote, the effect would be seen almost immediately. If the local elections were to get an 85% turn out, you can imagine how fast the TD's would sit up and take note. That's not to say a new party can't make a difference but I don't think it's the only solution, nor the best solution. Ireland a country of 4.5 million people has 4 big parties, the UK has 3, the US 2. Are more parties really what is needed? It is the responsibility of the people to hold their politicians to account. Ideally I would like to encourage more people to do this, which is one of the reasons that I wrote this post.
ReplyDeleteI agree, not the only solution and perhaps a little idealistic. On the other hand, I do think that the problem is on the supply side (voter participation) and when answering the question, "how do we mobilize more people to vote" the obvious answer, in my mind, is to present the voter with a cause they believe in/can engage with. Perhaps it’s the substitution/revamp of our current (ideologically vacuous) parties, with parties that hold a clearer message/agenda, is what is needed. Two potential results of parties with a clearer message: a) increase in voter participation (due increased identification) b) political parties less likely to allocate a disproportionate amount of their time/attention to the (sometimes) petty/less important demands of one portion of the electorate and to be held more accountable to more strategic longer term foci, in line with what the party stands for. As I said, perhaps focusing on changes to the party make-up of our political system is not, realistically, going to result in the changes we want to see; perhaps the answer lies in identifying other creative ways to mobilize inactive segments of our electorate (greater education of our electorate; generate more awareness; government backed incentives OR entice some attractive and charismatic people into politics ;) ). Either way, good post. You've made me think.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your input! My view on it is as follows, increase participation to begin with and follow this up with new parties, new ideologies etc as and when the need arises, or in tandem. I think that a large turnout would have the required effect and would focus minds accordingly. The point of this post was to explain to people why their vote matters, I hope that I have achieved that. Even if it's only a handful of extra votes.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside my email address is irishbusinessnews@gmail.com - if you'd like to get in touch about any other topics, or if you'd like to write a guest post let me know.