Irish politics are an ideological void?

brianthebard

the title pretty much explains everything, but do you agree or disagree? Imo none of the main parties (including the greens now) display any strong ideological slant. The only parties that do are small and at the fringes. Do people feel this is an accurate description of Irish politics?

Tim Robbins

brianthebard wrote: »

the title pretty much explains everything, but do you agree or disagree? Imo none of the main parties (including the greens now) display any strong ideological slant. The only parties that do are small and at the fringes. Do people feel this is an accurate description of Irish politics?

Yes there has definetly be a convergence alright. For example, none of parties disagree with low corperate tax, they are all pro - europe, very little difference on the North, when at one time there was a civil war over it.

The main differences is that there slight bends towards their traditional base.

FF: Builders, Developers, tradesmen
FG: Farmers
Labour: Unions
Green: Tree hugers, but I suspect they are going to get wiped out soon. They can no longer take the moral highground. They will always be judged on their performance in government, what did they do that the bog standard FF / FG minister could not or would not do?

It's a pity PDs got wiped out.

SkepticOne

I agree. Ireland has never been an ideological country. Political divisions often have more to do with family loyalty, parochialism, patronage and civil war history.

Sand

Ireland isnt extremely idealogical over economic or social policies...nationalist/cultural policies defined politics in Ireland for decades. Thats passed, but nothing has replaced it yet.

Theres simply nothing to discuss though. Socialism has been discredited. Ultra-Nationalism has been discredited. Semi-Theocracy has been discredited. Liberal democracy a.k.a capitalism is the only deal in town right now. Even self described socialists have come around to accepting free trade, market economy, private enterprise and individual liberty and now merely seek to siphon resources from it to fund state charity as opposed to a paradigm shift.

The Greens are possibly the only party remaining thats hostile to the market economy, but even they are in the midst of a move to accepting the market economy and seeking instead to moderate it.

It may change in the future. But right now, most parties agree on how Ireland should be run - voters can realistically only punish poor management and corruption or more likely, punish politicians who have somehow offended the publics sense of itself as defined by Joe Duffy.

gaf1983

I agree with the assessments of the previous posters.

Is it necessarily a bad thing that there aren't great ideological differences anymore? If both the government and opposition are in agreement about which "deal in town" they want the country to be run along the lines of, should this lead to better governance, as all sides will be striving to get society to reach the same goals, so the only manifesto they can put to the electorate is that they will reach the goals more efficiently than the other side.

DadaKopf

The Greens are possibly the only party remaining thats hostile to the market economy, but even they are in the midst of a move to accepting the market economy and seeking instead to moderate it.

I'd challenge this. I was at the Green convention at the weekend (I was working, I'm not a party member) and, if anything, they haven't thought through their ideology much at all. Talking to party members, they're quite wedded to political and economic liberalism. On energy policy, for example, they advocate deregulation, privatisation and competition as part of their environmental 'solution'. Micro-generation, they say, depends on economic liberalism. When asked about any negative effects arising from such an approach, party members drew a blank.

Ideology is very interesting. An ideology doesn't have to be explicitly there to operate; it often finds itself considered by many as 'common sense'. The elephant in the room.

4Xcut

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling%27s_law

This is, I believe, the main reason. Especially with parties not wanting to alienate precious voters.

I mean, FF are only in government with a coalition with the Greens, The PDs(both of them) and a few independents.

Then you have FG and Labor. Labor especially don't want to rick voters as they had only 10% in the last election, not a great showing. Although FG have a larger percentage of the electorate, they still don't want to risk becoming a smaller party.

Frankly, its not something that i see changing anytime soon as its too big a risk.

brianthebard

Sand wrote: »

Theres simply nothing to discuss though. Socialism has been discredited. Ultra-Nationalism has been discredited. Semi-Theocracy has been discredited. Liberal democracy a.k.a capitalism is the only deal in town right now. Even self described socialists have come around to accepting free trade, market economy, private enterprise and individual liberty and now merely seek to siphon resources from it to fund state charity as opposed to a paradigm shift.

You seem to have a thing against socialism and believe that individualism and socialism can't exist together, which isn't true, but apart from that most of your analysis is quite good.

The reason I posted this thread is mainly because I see the similiarities between parties as a "bad thing". There is no real opposition to what the government is doing at the minute, which means that there is no pressure on the government to try and improve performance. Meanwhile in countries where the main parties are not ideologically different we see a lack of interest from the electorate, sucessive governments following the same policies or looking the same with different figureheads. There isn't a whole lot to seperate the bush years from the clinton years imo. We havent' reached that stage yet, but we are definitely on the way.
Finally if a party/government is not driven by a core ideological cause, whether it be socialism, environmentalism, or whatever, then the country does not move forward but instead follows the same policies and falls in the same traps over and over again, simply because there is no other way to do business.

(this is all coming off the top of my head so apologies if it seems a bit incoherent.)

Sand

You seem to have a thing against socialism and believe that individualism and socialism can't exist together, which isn't true,

Socialism and individualism are opposed. Its not to say that either extreme is preferable, but Id rather err on the side of too much individual freedom as opposed to the totalarian terror of a full blow socialist state. There are mass graves across Europe, Russia, Asia, Africa and South America that would testify to what can go wrong with socialism. Even socialists like George Orwell [ who, unlike the socialist advocates of his time, abhorred totalarianism], who I do admire, would agree with me on that.

The reason I posted this thread is mainly because I see the similiarities between parties as a "bad thing".

I understand what youre saying, but is it really an issue if the basic framework has been agreed [ even unconciously]?

Imagine if you had a socialist and a liberal government trading places every 5 years - youd have forced nationalisations, a socialist driven entrenchment of unions over the public good in the civil service, laws undermining inidividual freedoms and then 5 years later there would be mass privatisation, liberalising law reform, and massive clashes with the unions before the wheel turned and the socialists got back into power.

Sheer chaos in other words. That we basically agree on how we want society to be organised and that we concentrate more on details as opposed to sweeping paradigm shifts is a sign of political maturity. Its a good thing that Irish politics is driven by adjustments and alterations of course as opposed to sweeping revolutions with blood in the streets. It mightnt set pulses racing, but I doubt the victims of Mugabes regime would do anything other than envy us.

brianthebard

Socialism is not about oppressing individuals or setting up dictatorships. The regimes you are talking about are merely dictatorships which claim to be socialist. What you are saying is no different from saying that capitalism is about setting up totalitarian regimes. We've seen it in Italy and other countries, it must be true.

Anyways, ideology does not have to go as far as being extreme left or right wing. If one party believed that education was the key, most vital aspect of a country and vowed to protect that sector whatever was happening in other places, that would be an ideologically driven party. Same for any party that holds up one or two core policies that they see as vital to the parties identity. We don't have that in Ireland, we have parties that say what they think people want to hear-look at the leader debates last year where every party promised to bring down taxes. Look at the way both FF and FG approach crime, europe, the health service, the civil service and so on. None of the main parties offer any real alternatives to how things are done now. And that means that the government can't be called out on something, or shown to be doing things wrong, because the opposition would do it more or less the same.

Belfast

Socialism tends to lead to dictatorship by beauracy.

None of the main parties offer any real alternatives to how things are done now. True no Libertarian party in Ireland. Irish political party are "Populist there my people go i must follow them".
The only thing they disagree on is who get the Mercs.

Irish political parties have run out of ideas other that keep tax low and do not have any idea that might lose votes.

mikemac

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The main differences is that there slight bends towards their traditional base.

FF: Builders, Developers, tradesmen
FG: Farmers

You must be referring to "strong farmers" meaning succussful and prosperous farmers as traditionally they'd be supporters of FG.

Smaller and poorer farmers would be more supportive of FF.

Just pointing it out since you mentioned tradition.
Doesn't realy apply so much anymore

DadaKopf

Socialism tends to lead to dictatorship by beauracy.

It's certainly interesting that socialist MP Tony Benn shifted away from using the 'S-word' to using 'democracy' in its full sense. He thinks proper democracy creates a desire for socialist egalitarianism, and egalitarianism is moribund without proper democracy.

In Ireland, ironically, you have an enormous explosion of a semi-state pseudo-bureaucracy, rather than core civil service, that is much less accountable and controllable than the traditional civil service. All these quangos, nearly 1,000 (no official figures are in existence), take up more public money than the core civil service. The OECD says it's been followed here, but nowhere else in the same way, to let politicians off the hook. Many positions are appointed by Ministers, and the Minister for Finance gets to decide which are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

So if there were an 'ideology' underlying this, one aspect of it is 'jobs for the boys'. The other is a clientelist political culture exhibiting little respect for real democracy. This is within an overall government neoliberal ideology.

Bubs101

Going back to the Original question, the primary reason that Ireland is an ideological void is that the two main parties occupy practically the exact same place on the left right spectrum. Fine Fail are conservatives and Fine Gael have just recently made a move to become Christian democrats and ideologically, they are both central right parties and practically the exact same. This means, that although they may differ on small things for the media, the overall aims of the parties are very similar.

Sinn Fein and the PDs are the most ideologically radical in Ireland. The PDs are/were a far right party and although technichally classed as a republican party like Eta'a, they have shown signs of a far left ideology. The lack of success of these two parties is enough to warn other potentially radical parties, like the Greens, to move towards the middle

Mr Minraise

Bubs101 wrote: »

Sinn Fein and the PDs are the most ideologically radical in Ireland. The PDs are/were a far right party and although technichally classed as a republican party like Eta'a, they have shown signs of a far left ideology. The lack of success of these two parties is enough to warn other potentially radical parties, like the Greens, to move towards the middle

This was true a few years ago but now, even parties such as Sinn Fein are moving towards the centre.

They have done a complete U-turn on all their economic policies. A few years ago they were in favour of extremly high Corporation tax and also increasing personal tax, whislt at the same time taking people out of the tax net. Yet just before the last GE they changed this policy to be inline with the likes of The Pd's etc.

It seems that parties are compromising their ideological beliefs in order to win votes and get into power. A clear example of this is the Greens.

Allthough you can see why parties have to do this to a certain degree, (ie, there's no point having certain ideological ideas if you never get to implement them) its unfair and disloyal to the people that support them.

Bubs101

Mr Minraise wrote: »

This was true a few years ago but now, even parties such as Sinn Fein are moving towards the centre.

They have done a complete U-turn on all their economic policies. A few years ago they were in favour of extremly high Corporation tax and also increasing personal tax, whislt at the same time taking people out of the tax net. Yet just before the last GE they changed this policy to be inline with the likes of The Pd's etc.

If they changed their policies to be in line with the PDs they would be taking an ideological swing from the left to the far right. The PDs are the most ideologically radical of all the parties by a mile. In fairness to Sinn Fein, compromising certain extreme policies of theirs might be viewed as an attempt to legitimize themselves to the voters

Mr Minraise

Bubs101 wrote: »

If they changed their policies to be in line with the PDs they would be taking an ideological swing from the left to the far right. The PDs are the most ideologically radical of all the parties by a mile. In fairness to Sinn Fein, compromising certain extreme policies of theirs might be viewed as an attempt to legitimize themselves to the voters

That was my point.

I dont agree with you that the PD's are far more ideologically radical then FF,FG, SF etc. Allthough they may have a different 'outlook' on things than LB or SF can you point out any major ideological differance in polices?

I think its pretty much plain to see that all Irish poltical parties converge around the centre, granted PD's may be slightly to the right and SF to the left.

Thats the main reason why Irish elections are turning into popularity contests. People cant really vote for the party that they feel will cater for their needs the best so they vote for who they like. Hence the likes of great/effective politions such as Micheal McDowell, who may make unpopular decisions, loose their seats.

Belfast

Ideological politics in a country like Britain is bases on class. working class, middle class, upper class.
Until recently most people in Ireland were peasant class who main interest was in owning land. In the urban setting this is now an interest in owning houses.

Ideological based on class politics therefore has limited appeal in Ireland.

Bubs101

Belfast wrote: »

Ideological politics in a country like Britain is bases on class. working class, middle class, upper class.
Until recently most people in Ireland were peasant class who main interest was in owning land. In the urban setting this is now an interest in owning houses.

Ideological based on class politics therefore has limited appeal in Ireland.

What utter nonsense. The real reason that ireland has no ideological divide in the top two parties at least is because of the divide in the 1930s caused families to vote for either FF or FG and they always voted that way.

Also, I'd be interested to see which party you think represents the working class in England Belfast. The BNP?

Sand

Socialism is not about oppressing individuals or setting up dictatorships. The regimes you are talking about are merely dictatorships which claim to be socialist. What you are saying is no different from saying that capitalism is about setting up totalitarian regimes. We've seen it in Italy and other countries, it must be true.

Property rights - the very cornerstone of individual liberty - are the basis of freedom, in my view. If the citizens of a state are the economic bedrock of the state, then the government must heed their interests and respect and uphold their rights. Otherwise, the "citizens" become the slaves of whatever Party/Bureacratic elite. As socialism undermines and threatens property rights, they also undermine and threaten individual liberty.

Italian facism was simply another aspect of the constant struggle by the few to impose their will over the individual through means of the state. The bull**** justifications for why the individuals rights should be held below the rights of the state were different but the reality was the same. Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and all other "ism's" other than capitalism which undermines the state for its own self interest are all just different aspects of the same struggle, between the individuals and the state. Tyranny of the mob and all that.

None of the main parties offer any real alternatives to how things are done now. And that means that the government can't be called out on something, or shown to be doing things wrong, because the opposition would do it more or less the same.

True, but the parties are merely selling themselves as administrators of a process and approach that the vast majority of people in Ireland already desire. People dont vote for a revolution, they vote for "more of the same, but better".

Hence the likes of great/effective politions such as Micheal McDowell, who may make unpopular decisions, loose their seats.

McDowell was a useful lightning rod for Fianna Fail. They could pretend that the PDs had strongarmed them. That it was all their fault. Completely deny responsibility for government decisions. Bertie Ahern is a class act, denouncing government failures without irony as if he was in the opposition for the past 10 years. Bev Flynn should be taking notes on what having some neck truly means.

Belfast

Bubs101 wrote: »

What utter nonsense. The real reason that ireland has no ideological divide in the top two parties at least is because of the divide in the 1930s caused families to vote for either FF or FG and they always voted that way.

that is part of it as well.

Bubs101 wrote: »

Also, I'd be interested to see which party you think represents the working class in England Belfast. The BNP?

Not sure at any party does any more. Labour has not for a long time.

molloyjh

The parties here represent the views of the people here. Irish people in general aren't that diverse and tend to be relatively centrist from a political viewpoint. That in itself is not a bad thing. And the thought that the parties are going to challenge each other not on idealogies, but on ability is, on the surface, a very positive one.

However it assumes two things. The first is that the politicians are going to work for the people. And second (very much related to the first) that the people will punish a party that do not perform. Party politics as it stands in Ireland at the moment works against that when Mr Murphy down the road is voting FF because they are his party and he's always voted for them, or Ms O'Brien is voting FG because her father did. This bizarre notion of allegiance to a political party in some ways runs contrary to the way in which democracy should be working.

If we can get past this notion of supporting a political party the way we'd support a football team then we could be well on our way. This in itself will help ensure that the parties are working harder for the people and then elections based on ability rather than idealogy could well be a great success. We just have to exercise our power as voters to help make that happen. Sadly we don't seem to be doing that very well at the moment.

o Diablo o

Sand wrote: »

Even self described socialists have come around to accepting free trade, market economy, private enterprise and individual liberty and now merely seek to siphon resources from it to fund state charity as opposed to a paradigm shift.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The Socialist Party stands for public ownership and democratic socialist planning of the key areas of economic activity.
Also, in response to comments about socialism leading to tyranny- the very nature of socialism demands personal freedom, as the idea is that the country be run in a 'bottom up' manner in the interests of common people. As leon trotsky put it, " democracy is the lifeblood of socialism". Totalitarian regimes which claim to be socialist are so only in name and betray the core ideology.

ChocolateSauce

o Diablo o wrote: »

I couldn't disagree with you more. The Socialist Party stands for public ownership and democratic socialist planning of the key areas of economic activity.
Also, in response to comments about socialism leading to tyranny- the very nature of socialism demands personal freedom, as the idea is that the country be run in a 'bottom up' manner in the interests of common people. As leon trotsky put it, " democracy is the lifeblood of socialism". Totalitarian regimes which claim to be socialist are so only in name and betray the core ideology.

That is nonsense. One of the core tenants of personal freedom is the freedom to be enterprising, and ultimately to become richer than most. If you are not free to do this you are not free.

Also, pure democracy is the exact opposite of freedom. Democracy means 50%+1 rules 50%-1. That is why we have laws which curtail democracy at every corner (the modern term is to "protect civil liberties"). Ergo, socialism is mob rule, where the poor steal from the rich.

Not that the rich should have everything either. Moderation is the key to success here.

Kama

Ergo, socialism is mob rule, where the poor steal from the rich.

Ergo, capitalism is elite rule, where the rich steal from the poor?

Neither seems very satisfactory, while the synergy of market-socialism seems a relatively stable synthesis, for all its demerits, crises, and critics. Concentrating argumentatively on a 'pure' robber-baron capitalism or a Communist dictatorship seems an ideological straw-man game.

Old joke comes to mind:

In Capitalism, man exploits his fellow man;
in Communism, the opposite is true.

Moderation is the key to success here.

Working out what 'moderate' means, or redefining it, is the political trick in and of itself, especially in a predominantly centrist system.

Taking the freedom and enterprise argument, if initial conditions due to accumulation mean that the freedom to become rich is significantly constrained, then a fair meritocratic argument can be made for restraining the freedoms of the rich, within a very capitalist-libertarian framework.

Akrasia

Sand wrote: »

Ireland isnt extremely idealogical over economic or social policies...nationalist/cultural policies defined politics in Ireland for decades. Thats passed, but nothing has replaced it yet.

Theres simply nothing to discuss though. Socialism has been discredited. Ultra-Nationalism has been discredited. Semi-Theocracy has been discredited. Liberal democracy a.k.a capitalism is the only deal in town right now. Even self described socialists have come around to accepting free trade, market economy, private enterprise and individual liberty and now merely seek to siphon resources from it to fund state charity as opposed to a paradigm shift.

You mean the free market capitalism that has seen us into a period of massively escalating personal debt, spiraling inflation and the possible collapse of the entire global financial system (or at least thats what would certainly happen if governemnts hadn't been artifically propping up the banks with public money)

Akrasia

gaf1983 wrote: »

I agree with the assessments of the previous posters.

Is it necessarily a bad thing that there aren't great ideological differences anymore? If both the government and opposition are in agreement about which "deal in town" they want the country to be run along the lines of, should this lead to better governance, as all sides will be striving to get society to reach the same goals, so the only manifesto they can put to the electorate is that they will reach the goals more efficiently than the other side.

not exactly, what happens is there is consensus amongst the political parties but they fall out of step with the wishes of the population. The more hegemonic the political system, the more difficult it is for dissenting voices to rise through the ranks and provide a diversity of opinion.

For example, the vast majority of people in America are strongly in favour of universal healthcare, but the vast majority of politicians wouldn't touch the issue with a barge pole (other than fake popullist election promises) because if they make a name for themselves by stirring up this issue they can kiss goodbye to any chance of political advancement.

Politics in a democracy should represent the interests and wishes of the people, not the ideology of a closed shop political elite. (otherwise whats the point?)

Akrasia

Sand wrote: »

Socialism and individualism are opposed. Its not to say that either extreme is preferable, but Id rather err on the side of too much individual freedom as opposed to the totalarian terror of a full blow socialist state.

The ability and willingness to engage in voluntary collective action is an essential part of society, its what allowed our species to dominate the entire planet. Individualism is a flawed concept, that someone can divorce themselves and their interests from the interests of society at large is a major cause of many of the social problems we face today. The fact that businesspeople can so happily seperate morality and ethics from their business decisions and do things in the name of money that they would consider abhorent in their private lives is a good demonstration of this (eg, polluting the environment through their business, while making sure to recycle all their domestic waste, or buying shares in companies that make weapons to be used by child soldiers in south america while privately donating money to their local childrens hospital)

There are mass graves across Europe, Russia, Asia, Africa and South America that would testify to what can go wrong with socialism. Even socialists like George Orwell [ who, unlike the socialist advocates of his time, abhorred totalarianism], who I do admire, would agree with me on that.

Thats what happens when totalitarianism and nationalism and tribalism take over. those massacres happen under capitalism as well as 'socialism' (its just the liberal press tend to downplay the crimes of capitalist states)

oscarBravo

Akrasia wrote: »

For example, the vast majority of people in America are strongly in favour of universal healthcare...

Really?

brianthebard

oscarBravo wrote: »

Really?

Yes, apparently so.

In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system.

oscarBravo

Wow.