Ireland since 1922 - a democracy or not ? Diarmuid Ferriter seems to think not.

CDfm

This question arose in the Church thread.

CDfm wrote: »

So we are nominally democratic then but not really and that was the intention ?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Dairmaid Ferriter certainly seems to think so. Nothing I have read makes me doubt his interpretations though I must admit Modern Irish is not my area of expertise.

I thought the War of Independence and all that was all about being a democracy.

Manach

Apart from just running a wiki search on Dairmaid Ferriter, had not heard of him till now. My own semi-area of expertise is the Classical world, so from the strict Athenian perspective - nobody but them have achieved a true democracy.

CDfm

Manach wrote: »

Apart from just running a wiki search on Dairmaid Ferriter, had not heard of him till now. My own semi-area of expertise is the Classical world, so from the strict Athenian perspective - nobody but them have achieved a true democracy.

Ferriter is probably our best Modern Historian and this is what he said in the IT recently

DIARMAID FERRITER
ANALYSIS: IN 1997, at the time of the 75th anniversary of the foundation of this state, political scientist Tom Garvin penned a robust defence of politicians’ performances in the context of their success in establishing the legitimacy of the state and its democratic institutions, particularly during times when other countries in Europe failed lamentably to do that.
“Despite their mistakes and sins,” he wrote, “the Irish revolutionaries-turned-politicians got it more right than wrong.”
It appeared quite a convincing argument, underlining the achievements of the Civil War generation in overcoming the divisions of the early 1920s in order to create stability during difficult times.
But the cumulative affect of the various tribunal reports, most recently Mahon, may require political scientists and historians to question or qualify some of their earlier assumptions about the achievements of independence.
Taking the long view, perhaps the very impulses that created stability and consensus in the earlier decades of independence also facilitated a fundamental neglect of civic morality and citizenship. This neglect ultimately allowed the sort of “systemic and endemic” corruption exposed by the Mahon report, and as revealed previously by the Moriarty report, what amounted to a devaluing of “the quality of democracy itself”.
There was not enough debate about policy, ideology or the consequences of a ruthless centralisation and authoritarianism. As Garvin observed, in 1922, whatever about devotion to national politics, “these unenthusiastic democrats were qualified in their attachment to democratic ideas and were not prepared to trust people with the power to run local affairs”.
This point about trust is vital: if people are not trusted to run their own affairs, they devise other ways of getting things done and with that the likelihood of corruption increases. While there were valiant attempts from the 1920s to clean up malpractice in local government, in the long run local authorities were stripped of most of their powers and the few that they were left with, including the power to rezone land, were abused.
In terms of national politics, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael were born of Civil War divisions, rather than having competing visions about how to shape society. After the laying of the State’s foundations, the practice of politics became about the spoils of the system rather than engagement with ideas about the nature of citizenship. It was about management rather than vision. It was also about, in a society so homogeneously Catholic, abrogating responsibility to the Catholic church in too many crucial areas, including education, with a resultant narrow focus on what constituted immorality.
Political culture was male-dominated and a closed system in which those who had ideas about doing things differently were dismissed as maverick, or, worse still, intellectuals, who had no place or role in Irish politics. It is instructive in this regard how difficult it was for intellectuals like David Thornley and Conor Cruise O’Brien to sustain careers in politics.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0326/1224313893518.html

( He continues about tribunals but that is to recent for here)

This precceded Bannasidhe's and my exchange. Totally off the church topic.

CDfm wrote: »

I have often asked about what democratic aspirations our crowd had ?



Bannasidhe are you implying that Ireland is somehow democratic.

Our civil service was inherited from the British and did we just continue with more of the same. The Civil Service has patronage.

Same dog, different hair ???

And, if you take our 1937 Constitution , it incorporated Catholic Social policy and non democratic elements too. A little bit fascist in some ways.

You cannot say that anything that has led to the Social Partnership and avoiding parliament is democratic.

The voting system is controlled by the party leaders in power via the whip system i.e. the Taoiseach decides and the whips enforce.

So you cannot single out just the church, there are lots of unelected bodies who do not report to the Oireachtas who are in "power"

Hardly democratic IMHO and Ferriter says it was never meant to be.

Manach

In the long rule, to paraphrase the example the French Revolution and the remarks of the Chinese foreign minister, is being still in play as to if was a good/bad event. Mr. Ferriter seems to be declaring this point, as marked by the Mahon Tribunal as the end of history, which perhaps might be a tad presumptuous.
It is the nature to any organisation to accumulate power, and in comparison with the Kleptocratic revolutionary regimes set up post WWI, the Irish model rates well.

To assume that local affairs democracy is in somewhat an indicator of the health of a nation, ignores the disregard these people are held in regard by many in the population - as per the ignoring of calls for the property tax.

By calling the constitution a little bit fascist is just a lazy shortcut as Fascist now is used by the Left as a blanket term for evil and completely ignores the clauses in the constitution which protect the family from the same measure of State interference as say the UK and as well does not mention the referendum mechanism - flawed yes but still a check on the ambitions of the state

So if Mr. Ferriter the best Irish historian, I think I'll stick to the Roman historians.

CDfm

Manach wrote: »

By calling the constitution a little bit fascist is just a lazy shortcut as Fascist now is used by the Left as a blanket term for evil and completely ignores the clauses in the constitution which protect the family from the same measure of State interference as say the UK and as well does not mention the referendum mechanism - flawed yes but still a check on the ambitions of the state

The fascist comment is mine and refers really to how the Senate is set up along sectoral lines.

jonniebgood1

Manach wrote: »

So if Mr. Ferriter the best Irish historian, I think I'll stick to the Roman historians.

You should give him a chance- I find him excellent.
Check out the introduction to 'the transformation of Ireland 1900-2000' . It can be previewed there and I find him excellent.

P. Breathnach

CDfm wrote: »

The fascist comment is mine and refers really to how the Senate is set up along sectoral lines.

I think the word you wanted was corporatist.

As I understand it (which is only to a limited extent, I freely admit) it was an idea supported by Catholic social thinking of the 1930s, and it ran alongside facism in Italy.

The strong position taken in the Constitution on the primacy of the family was also part of Catholic social thinking.

Manach

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You should give him a chance- I find him excellent.
Check out the introduction to 'the transformation of Ireland 1900-2000' . It can be previewed there and I find him excellent.

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll follow up.

CDfm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think the word you wanted was corporatist.

That's the word and I have a shocking cold

As I understand it (which is only to a limited extent, I freely admit) it was an idea supported by Catholic social thinking of the 1930s, and it ran alongside facism in Italy.

Its the political thinking thats dodgy.

As of 1900 there were no true democracies

As Freedom House notes in its latest annual survey of freedom in the world, there was not a single country in 1900 that would qualify by today’s standards as a democracy. By 1950, only 22 of the 80 sovereign political systems in the world (28 percent) were democratic. When the third wave of global democratization began in 1974, there were 39 democracies, but the percentage of democracies in the world was about the same (27 percent). Yet by January 2000, Freedom House counted 120 democracies, the highest number and the greatest percentage (63) in the history of the world.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7310

So were our representatives democrats ?

The strong position taken in the Constitution on the primacy of the family was also part of Catholic social thinking.

What particular policies and to what end ?

Bannasidhe

Ferriter's documentary series The Limits of Liberty is well worth watching.
The intro is available here:

Apparently Kevin O Higgin's described the 1918 democratic programme for government written by Labour's Thomas Johnson and SF's Sean T O'Kelly as 'largely poetry.'

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ferriter's documentary series The Limits of Liberty is well worth watching.
The intro is available here:

I must watch that.

Apparently Kevin O Higgin's described the 1918 democratic programme for government written by Labour's Thomas Johnson and SF's Sean T O'Kelly as 'largely poetry.'

So with Lemass describing Fianna Fail as "slightly constitutional" in the late 20's we don't seem to be doing well.

franc 91

It's certainly an eye-opener (and I'm a complete outsider) all the episodes are there on YouTube as well, so you can follow the whole story. I'm very impressed by him and what he has to say.

CDfm

Here is a very interesting piece about the history of our constitution.

The 1922 Constitution was of Irish manufacture; in January 1922, the “Provisional Government” appointed a committee to draft it.[12]

On 27th February 1922, Churchill informed the House of Commons that the Provisional Government was aware of requirements which would lead to British acceptance and that the Irish general election would be postponed to “the early part of June instead of in April.” “The Constitution will be submitted to the Irish people by and with the authority of the Provisional Government, and not by and with the authority of the Dail Eireann. The Provisional Government recognise that they will have to take steps to satisfy themselves that the Constitution so framed is of a character that the British Government can accept as fulfilling the Treaty.”

On 15th June 1922, Churchill, announced to the Commons:-
“But there are two events of very considerable importance which will take place to-morrow. The first is the Irish Elections and the second is the publication of the Irish Constitution. So far as the Irish Elections are concerned, I am sure that the less we say about them here at this stage, the better.
“So far as the Irish Constitution is concerned, unexpected progress has been made. The Constitution will be published in to-morrow morning's newspapers on both sides of the Channel, and it is my duty to state on behalf of His Majesty's Government that in their opinion the Constitution is in conformity with the Treaty”.

Members including Captain Craig [Unionist, Antrim] were moved to criticise Churchill’s equivocation; Churchill blamed the Provisional Government, then confronted with what was arguably the most difficult year in recent Irish history.

Eventually, “[t]he Constitution appeared in the newspapers on the morning of Polling Day. Those voters who lived at any distance from Dublin did not see it before going to the Poll. Tens of thousands voted with the promise of a Republican Constitution still in their minds.”[13]

PEOPLE POWER - ACKNOWLEDGED

The 1922 Constitution had important provisions, which echoed the Swiss Federal Constitution. Their basis appeared in Article 50:-
“Amendments of this Constitution within the terms of the Scheduled Treaty may be made by the Oireachtas, but no such amendment, ..., after the expiration of a period of eight years from the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution, shall become law, unless the same shall, ...., have been submitted to a Referendum of the people, and unless a majority of the voters on the register shall have recorded their votes on such Referendum, and either the votes of a majority of the voters on the register, or two-thirds of the votes recorded shall have been cast in favour of such amendment. Any such amendment may be made within the said period of eight years by way of ordinary legislation and as such shall be subject to the provisions of Article 47 hereof.”

Conceivably the most radical were Articles 47 and 48. Similar to Articles 138 to 141 of the modern Swiss Federal Constitution, they encapsulated the fundamentals of Direct Democracy. Essentially, 100,000 Swiss citizens can propose a complete or partial revision of the Federal Constitution. Article 140 requires that these amendments must be approved in referendum by a majority of the People and of the Cantons. The Free State being a unitary state had no equivalent of cantons, which in Switzerland could be used to alleviate what Aquinas called “tyranny of the majority” [i.e. democracy].

PEOPLE POWER AND A LITTLE CUTE HOORISM

On 5th October 1922, in the committee stage of the Constitution Bill, Kevin O'Higgins (Minister for Justice) introduced the proposed “Article 47—Power of Initiation by the People.
“The Parliament/Oireachtas may provide for the initiation by the people of proposals for laws or constitutional amendments. Should the Parliament/Oireachtas fail to make such provision within two years, it shall, on the petition of not less than one hundred thousand voters on the register, of whom not more than twenty thousand shall be voters in any one constituency, either make such provisions or submit the question to the people for decision in accordance with the ordinary regulations governing the Referendum. Any legislation passed by the Parliament/ Oireachtas providing for such initiation by the people shall provide
(1) that such proposals may be initiated on a petition of fifty thousand voters on the register;
(2) that if the Parliament/Oireachtas rejects a proposal so initiated it shall be submitted to the people for decision in accordance with the ordinary regulations governing the Referendum; and
(3) that if the Parliament/Oireachtas enacts a proposal so initiated, such enactment shall be subject to the provisions respecting ordinary legislation or amendments of the Constitution as the case may be.”

The minister continued:-
“In moving the adoption of this Article, I may say it will still further associate the people with the forging of the laws of the country, and it puts the power in the hands of the people of even initiating legislation. If a large section of the people feel that a certain law is desirable; and if Parliament fails to introduce the desired legislation, power is given here to the people to initiate legislation themselves. It is the direct complement of the Referendum, and pretty much what can be claimed for the Referendum can be claimed for the Initiative—that it keeps contact between the people and their laws, and keeps responsibility and consciousness in the minds of the people that they are the real and ultimate rulers of the country. The text of the Article as it stands is permissive; it is not mandatory. It is permissive of Parliament to institute the initiative, but it is mandatory if Parliament, having failed to introduce it, is so requested by a petition within two years. I think it is better not to speak of the amendments that are on the paper until they are moved.”

Deputy Thomas Johnson, the Labour leader, enthusiastically welcomed this but proposed that vacillation be removed and the amended article be confirmed. Ernest Blythe, the second minister to speak, prevaricated: “There are difficulties about making anything mandatory within a limited period. We cannot tell what the Parliamentary history of the next two years may be.”

Deputy O'Shannon teased Johnson for “scaring the farmer Deputies into the belief that [he] wants to Bolshevise the country right off by this proposal.”

“Motion made and question put: — “That Article 47 stand part of the Bill.” It did.

On 29th November 1922, Dáil Éireann was informed that Britain had accepted the Free State Constitution. Essentially, the British had little to lose, as the enabling act loyally embraced the Treaty.

... AND A LITTLE LIGHT LEGERDEMAIN


In the General Election, June 1927, the newly-formed Fianna Fáil [FF] became the second largest party in the Dáil with 44 T.Ds. It refused to swear allegiance to His Britannic Majesty, until on August 11th, de Valera discounted the oath of allegiance, from a justification of civil war to “merely an empty political formula”.

Five days later Thomas Johnson TD, proposed a vote of no confidence in the “executive committee”, which was tied [71-71] and the Ceann Comhairle’s casting vote was needed to save the government. On 25th the Dáil was dissolved. The resulting General Election gave FF 57 T.Ds. against Cummann na nGael’s 62 [and deprived Thomas Johnson of his place.]

On 3rd May 1928, De Valera failed with a petition of 96,000 signatures to force a referendum for the removal of the Parliamentary oath of allegiance to the English monarch. [The Constitution, Article 48, required only 75,000.] An Ceann Comhairle intervened with what seems like sarcasm: “As objection is taken, it seems that Deputy de Valera must give notice of motion asking that leave be granted to present the petition. I take it that there will be no difficulty, after consultation with the Deputy, in finding a proper form for that motion.” In the ensuing protracted prevarication, de Valera accused the government of denying FF: “the only way open to us in the Constitution, in order to get in here and allow those we represent to be represented properly, that the question for the first time was raised of taking out Articles 47 and 48.”

The “only way” was closed permanently on 12th July by the Constitutional (Amendment No. 10). In less than 100 words, the Government effectively buried true democracy, which it lacked the courage to grant in the first instance.

In the month from 6th June 1928, the Dáil met on 15 days and conducted 22 debates on constitutional amendments. It processed Constitutional Amendment Bills: Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13. On July 4th, senator complained that he had lost count of the “sweeping alterations in the Constitution for which [the Government] themselves were responsible, in a Constitution for the protection of which they have been imprisoning people all over the country within the last few years, shooting them and doing various other things which I did not approve of. ... it shows that those who are prepared to do these sort of things ought not to be in such a hurry to alter the Constitution in this wholesale way, and especially without consulting the people. Worse than that is the degrading of the Constitution by imposing measures on it in a way which I find it difficult to get a suitable word to describe. It destroys the public morals and in fact the whole Constitution. Ministers have made statements to the public, which they must know are not true. They have stated that this Bill, if it is not passed, will produce a state of war or disturbance in this country. It is hard to understand how any people with any intelligence could possibly make such statements.”

PEOPLE POWER – YOU THINK YOU SEE IT; NOW YOU DON’T!

In the very short Constitution (Amendment No. 16) ACT, 1929, the Oireachtas demonstrated a fundamental weakness in the Constitution: -
“Article 50 of the Constitution shall be and is hereby amended by the deletion therefrom of the words "eight years" in each of the places in which those words now occur therein and the insertion in each case of the words "sixteen years" in lieu of the words so deleted, and the said Article 50 shall be construed and have effect accordingly”. [Why stop at "sixteen years"?]


A CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT: AN APPARENT CHANGE OF STRATEGY

In February 1932, FF sought a mandate from voters to abolish payment of Land Annuities to Britain; the following month de Valera formed the first FF government, which released political prisoners and suspended military trials for political offences, instituted by Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act, October 1931.

On 19th May 1932, the Dáil passed the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill. Unlike previous constitutional amendments, it disregarded the 1921 Treaty [Article 4]. Later, the [British] Privy Council held in Moore v. Attorney-General of the Irish Free State, 1935, that by section 2, Statute of Westminster, 1931, “a Dominion Parliament was given full legislative powers,.... The Statute can be amended by a Dominion Parliament so far as it is part of its own statute law.”

CONCLUSIONS

In the Dáil on 16 December 1937, the veteran Fine Gael T.D. [1923-1965], lawyer and future government minister, Patrick McGilligan, denied the power of the people to “enact” the new Bunreacht.
“... legislative power was given to a body called the Oireachtas. That body could have, if it so wished, given back power to the people to enact legislation but it failed to do so.”... “How does it come then that the people enact anything?”
The Dáil voted: the question and its fundamental refutation of people power were simply disregarded.

The British Government and preeminent jurists refused to acknowledge Direct Democracy, except for Switzerland. Our elected rulers probably recognised its benefits for the people and scuppered them. The amending statutes were on the whole extremely short, often of one functional section. The disposal of Articles 47 and 48 and neutralising Article 50 provided stark evidence of its serial manipulation into a Westminster-style “elective dictatorship.” [14] While cynically and systematically denied the electorate the necessary power, the Free State government duplicitously proclaimed the people as “the real and ultimate rulers of the country”.

http://www.directdemocracyireland.org/about-us/irelands-history-of-democracy.html

One of the issue's for me is the origan of the state of our democracy.

Why, well we have things like social partnerships (unelected) doing deals with Taoisigh.

The Taoiseach is elected by the members of their own parties.In effect, the system we have is almost presidential and bears no relationship to our constitution.

That's a bit different to this

Wild Bill

It's a good question.

But it could equally be asked of the UK or the USA.

Compared to them? Definitely a democracy!

Compared to the ideal? No. :cool:

Wild Bill

CDfm wrote: »

So with Lemass describing Fianna Fail as "slightly constitutional" in the late 20's we don't seem to be doing well.

Legalism isn't "democracy". Hardly even an indicator of democracy.

The French revolutionaries tumbling heads into baskets were probably more democratic than power protected by bought and paid for "legality" in a typical "liberal democracy".

How do you define democracy?

The tyranny of the 51% - or is it something more? And if so, who decides what the "more" is - and with what mandate?

golfwallah

Manach wrote: »

My own semi-area of expertise is the Classical world, so from the strict Athenian perspective - nobody but them have achieved a true democracy.

To look at democracy “from the strict Athenian perspective”, it needs to be seen in the context of society and the conditions people were dealing with in those ancient times. For example, there were a lot fewer people around then and, although there are similarities, life was a lot less complicated than today. Ancient Athenians were also heavily dependent on slavery.

As regards “nobody but them have achieved a true democracy” – from what I’ve read, only male citizens over a certain age could participate. They also had a direct rather than representative form of democracy, meaning they didn’t elect politicians but voted on every law themselves. Being an amateur rather than professional form of democracy, this also gave rise to problems of stability and continuity, as laws and rights enacted one day could be reversed the next.

Sure, there’s a lot we can learn by studying Athenian democracy – we certainly need more engagement with the ordinary citizens to give them more say in the services they want and are paying for. How to achieve this and at the same time prioritise and get things done in a timely, professional, honest manner is the real challenge for our democratic system today.

CDfm

OK, but what was different between pre Independence Ireland and the Anglo-Irish ascendency which it replaced ?

golfwallah

CDfm wrote: »

OK, but what was different between pre Independence Ireland and the Anglo-Irish ascendency which it replaced ?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think you mean "post Independence Ireland".

The big difference in that case was that the majority (outside of Ulster) wanted independence from Britain.

This was manifested by a majority vote for Sinn Fein in the 1918 elections and defeat of the nationalist Irish Parliamentary Party, leading to the formation of the 1st Dail and later the war of Independence.

Whether the Irish people actually got what they were promised or expected from "post independence Ireland", is another thing altogether.

I think the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy, just like the landed gentry in Britain, were on the way out (as regards being a dominant force in society) anyway post World War 1.

CDfm

golfwallah wrote: »

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think you mean "post Independence Ireland".

That too.

I think the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy, just like the landed gentry in Britain, were on the way out (as regards being a dominant force in society) anyway post World War 1.

I forget who wrote it but between 1916 and 1922 Ireland had lost 4 political elites.


To be replaced with

Dail Stars - From Croke Park to Leinster House

by Connor McMorrow (2010)

Price: €13.60
Explores the remarkable journey of how the GAA has been a breeding ground for Irish politicians for over a century.

In Dáil Stars, Conor McMorrow picks an All-Star team of politicians whose prowess on the playing field or in GAA administration has been matched by their success in Irish politics.
By devoting a chapter to each of the 15 'Dáil Stars' the book tells each player/politician's individual GAA and political story using candid interviews and archive material for the historical figures.
Among the Dáil Stars featured are Eoin O'Duffy, Austin Stack, Jack Lynch, Dan Spring, Jimmy Deenihan, Martin Ferris, Henry Kenny and more.
It includes:-

• How Blueshirts founder and former Ulster GAA Secretary Eoin O'Duffy invited a Nazi spy to an All-Ireland final; and the story of the Monaghan football team's audacious jailbreak plan.
• How Mayo football star and TD Henry Kenny, father of Enda Kenny, invited TDs to his own all-night 'wake' in the Dáil bar.
• Sinn Féin TD Martin Ferris on winning an under-21 All-Ireland title as an IRA fugitive on the run and breaking his hand by hitting future Fine Gael TD John O'Mahony in the final against Mayo.
• Fine Gael TD and Kerry legend Jimmy Deenihan on his heart-to-heart with John B Keane about entering politics;
• Six-time All-Ireland winning dual star Jack Lynch and when the whiskey goes 'below Thurles';
• How Seán Flanagan, the GAA's 'original Roy Keane', tried to scrap his own government department as a minister and how he took the Mayo backs to London to learn from the Arsenal FC defenders.
• Des Foley, the Arms Trial and the medal robbery.
• Plus the 'Substitutes' (more GAA politicians) and the 'Also-rans': GAA stars who unsuccessfully stood for election.

http://www.terracetalk.com/picks/15/Dail-Stars--From-Croke-Park-to-Leinster-House

The Irish System is almost presidential where the Taoiseach gets elected by his party and then uses the whip system to push legislation thru.


If a TD does not vote as directed they are expelled from the parliamentary party.


On top of this you have the Social Partners & Public Service that are not elected or responsible to parliament.


In our history it has been controlled by one or other side of the Civil War.



Our current Taoiseach is from a GAA elite too.

golfwallah

CDfm wrote: »

I forget who wrote it but between 1916 and 1922 Ireland had lost 4 political elites.

Maybe that’s because these political elites didn’t get enough votes and simply lost the election – but, hey, that’s democracy!

CDfm wrote: »

To be replaced with <Dail Stars stuff>

There’s an old adage that, at the end of the day, we get the government we deserve and deserve the government we get.

Another pertinent adage is “those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber (Plato).

God help us, but we elect ‘em, or have the choice of going forward ourselves – so whether they come from a GAA background or otherwise, I guess these old adages still hold.

CDfm wrote: »

The Irish System is almost presidential where the Taoiseach gets elected by his party and then uses the whip system to push legislation thru.


If a TD does not vote as directed they are expelled from the parliamentary party.

That’s the system we have and it’s not unique to Ireland. Can’t see why you call it “almost presidential” - It is totally different to the USA, where the parties elect the presidential candidate, who is in turn directly elected.

Politics is the art of the possible and party politics depends on compromise to get things done. There are thousands of issues out there that affect peoples’ lives. Those joining political parties do so for lots of reasons, but the majority are community minded and engage in the process to do some good. Given limited resources, it’s simply impossible to resolve every issue. This necessitates choices, priorities, compromise on the issues of the day plus unity of purpose (hence the whip system). TDs know and accept it when putting themselves forward for election, so it is a form of contract with their parties, whose policies the electorate vote on. It follows that, if they do not vote as directed, they are in breach of contract with their party and the electorate, so should be expelled.

CDfm wrote: »

On top of this you have the Social Partners & Public Service that are not elected or responsible to parliament.

Agreed, Social Partners are an interest group and not elected or answerable to the general electorate. Maybe the issue is that Trade Unions have a lot of influence through their members and with party funding. Yes, the social partners are entitled to a voice .... just how to do this without disproportionately influencing the political process for everyone is a difficult one to resolve.

I also strongly agree with your point on public servants not being elected. Maybe a start could be made by having Local Authority County Managers directly elected rather than appointed into unsackable positions for life. Might make them a tad more responsive to their electorates.

CDfm wrote: »

In our history it has been controlled by one or other side of the Civil War.

The Civil War was a long time ago and the last election showed that a lot of people were prepared to change their voting habits .... so, I don’t think this holds any more. People vote for what they perceive to be in their own best interests, IMHO.

CDfm wrote: »

Our current Taoiseach is from a GAA elite too.

So what? It’s a free country and I don’t see how association with any sporting organisation should either qualify or disqualify anybody from going for political office.

CDfm

golfwallah wrote: »

That’s the system we have and it’s not unique to Ireland. Can’t see why you call it “almost presidential” - It is totally different to the USA, where the parties elect the presidential candidate, who is in turn directly elected.

One man deciding policy is presidential- what else can you call it.

It is totally different because in the USA the president has to negotiate with the senate and doesn't tell them what to do.

Given limited resources, it’s simply impossible to resolve every issue. This necessitates choices, priorities, compromise on the issues of the day plus unity of purpose (hence the whip system). TDs know and accept it when putting themselves forward for election, so it is a form of contract with their parties, whose policies the electorate vote on. It follows that, if they do not vote as directed, they are in breach of contract with their party and the electorate, so should be expelled.

How democratic.

Agreed, Social Partners are an interest group and not elected or answerable to the general electorate. Maybe the issue is that Trade Unions have a lot of influence through their members and with party funding. Yes, the social partners are entitled to a voice .... just how to do this without disproportionately influencing the political process for everyone is a difficult one to resolve.

So one guy does backroom deals with unelected individuals.

How did we arrive at that and is this what home rule meant.

I also strongly agree with your point on public servants not being elected. Maybe a start could be made by having Local Authority County Managers directly elected rather than appointed into unsackable positions for life. Might make them a tad more responsive to their electorates.

Was the local government system inherited from the British too.



The Civil War was a long time ago and the last election showed that a lot of people were prepared to change their voting habits .... so, I don’t think this holds any more. People vote for what they perceive to be in their own best interests, IMHO.



So what? It’s a free country and I don’t see how association with any sporting organisation should either qualify or disqualify anybody from going for political office.[/QUOTE]

Did we replace one ascendency with another ?

golfwallah

CDfm wrote: »

One man deciding policy is presidential- what else can you call it.

It is simply incorrect to say that one man decides policy in Ireland, especially given our penchant for coalitions. Certainly we have a Taoiseach / Prime Minister, who would have a strong leadership influence on the cabinet, but he has to gain consensus and bring people along with him. The cabinet operates on democratic lines, so to say that one man alone decides on policy, I doubt if many would agree with you on that. Where is your evidence to support this view?

CDfm wrote: »

It is totally different because in the USA the president has to negotiate with the senate and doesn't tell them what to do.

Yes, it is different from the system in the USA, where the President, as the executive branch of government, has to negotiate with Congress, as the legislative branch. But this is comparing chalk and cheese. Ireland is a small country compared to the USA – in fact, I’d say, comparable only to the smaller US States, who are in turn represented in the Legislative Branch (Congress and the Senate, as a sub-set thereof). Our system suits us and, if enough people want to change it, they are free to mount a campaign to gain the support to so do.

CDfm wrote: »

How democratic.

Yes, that’s precisely what it is. What workable alternative are you proposing?

CDfm wrote: »

So one guy does backroom deals with unelected individuals.

I don’t particularly agree with how social partnership has been working – there are undoubted pros and cons that I don’t propose to go through here. That said, you’re entitled to make a debating point but that doesn’t solve the problem of finding the most acceptable way of dealing with social partnership in the real world.

CDfm wrote: »

How did we arrive at that and is this what home rule meant.

Home Rule is an anachronistic historical term that is no longer relevant to politics in Ireland today. We have the system we have, whether people like it or not. It was arrived at through democratic processes over the years and can be changed through these very same processes.

CDfm wrote: »

Was the local government system inherited from the British too.

Most people don’t particularly care from whom it was inherited. We have had our independence for long enough to have moulded it into a format that suited our needs better. Some changes have been made, but, unlike history, which is static, real life is dynamic and changing, so Local Government needs to continuously re-invent itself to keep pace with evolving needs. In the long run, that’s the law of the market and it applies to political systems, local and central government as much as it applies to commercial companies.

CDfm wrote: »

Did we replace one ascendency with another ?

Don’t think so. Many people may have tipped their forelocks to the old ascendancy before World War 1 and, to a more limited extent, declining over time, thereafter.

But to think that Irish people behave the same way toward some imagined new ascendancy, is a gross over-simplification, IMO. In my experience, people, in a democracy, support those whom they perceive to best represent their interests and the interest of the country overall. I have found this to be true in all social groupings I have been involved in, either on committees or as chairman of committees. Certainly, the leader has a responsibility to present and explain issues. After that, each individual on committee can voice their own opinions on the issues and influence change from their perspectives. Likewise, committees can decide either to operate by consensus or to vote on some or all issues that they are required to decide upon. Leaders, who ignore these dynamics don’t last long in a democratically minded society.

CDfm

golfwallah wrote: »

It is simply incorrect to say that one man decides policy in Ireland, especially given our penchant for coalitions. Certainly we have a Taoiseach / Prime Minister, who would have a strong leadership influence on the cabinet, but he has to gain consensus and bring people along with him. The cabinet operates on democratic lines, so to say that one man alone decides on policy, I doubt if many would agree with you on that. Where is your evidence to support this view?

Why not, he appoints the ministers and can fire and reshuffle them without reference to the Dail or his own party.

Most of the academic literature points to the weakness of the Irish parliament
as a monitor of government. MacCarthaigh (2006) bemoans the inability of the Dáil
to hold government accountable. O’Halpin (1998) notes that Dáil Deputies have
neither bark nor bite when it comes to holding the government to account. Gallagher
(2010) finds that the government clearly dominates parliament and sees little prospect
of the nature of this relationship changing. Murphy (2006) notes that reforms to
strengthen the Oireachtas have failed to redress the imbalance of power between the
executive and legislature.

http://webpages.dcu.ie/~martins/mig.pdf

Worse still, John Bruton says Civil Servants rule the country and not the dail or government .

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/bruton-condemns-political-system-15047569.html

Yes, that’s precisely what it is. What workable alternative are you proposing?

This is about the history on how we have found ourselves in this situation.

I don’t particularly agree with how social partnership has been working – there are undoubted pros and cons that I don’t propose to go through here. That said, you’re entitled to make a debating point but that doesn’t solve the problem of finding the most acceptable way of dealing with social partnership in the real world.

It isn't in the constitution or any previous constitution.

Home Rule is an anachronistic historical term that is no longer relevant to politics in Ireland today. We have the system we have, whether people like it or not. It was arrived at through democratic processes over the years and can be changed through these very same processes...............Most people don’t particularly care from whom it was inherited. We have had our independence for long enough to have moulded it into a format that suited our needs better............. . Leaders, who ignore these dynamics don’t last long in a democratically minded society.

You couldn't read the constitution and see our structure of government in it.

Social Partners & Interest Groups and Civil Servants acting as key parts of decision making and virtually autonomous.

The current economic crisis had an unelected Central Bank Board decide not to monitor or regulate banks. WTF ?

The voter elects their TD who in turn elects their party leader who then has a shot at being Taoiseach. So the only real decision the TD makes is who their party leader is.With a coalition the voter does not get a say on policy.

Who decided all this and when did this become our form of government ?

And how does this relate to the form of government envisaged in 1916 ???

golfwallah

As regards leadership, leaders are expected to use their own judgement as part of getting the job done. That’s life. The Taoiseach is the leader, even if not directly elected into the position by the people. As leader it is up to him to do the best he can – unfortunately, this includes making judgements on performance, etc, sacking ministers, etc. The leader is the person who has most information available to him on ministers’ performance, what is happening, etc. Sometimes he has to make hard decisions and act – it comes with the territory – it’s his job.

The Taoiseach’s powers in this regard are set out in Article 28 of the Constitution: “The Taoiseach may at any time, for reasons which to him seem sufficient, request a member of the Government to resign; should the member concerned fail to comply with the request, his appointment shall be terminated by the President if the Taoiseach so advises”.

Can you really imagine a leader, who can’t sack ministers and had to refer every decision “to the Dail or his own party”, now really? The Dail and his party are more concerned with results not who does what, and rightly so, IMO.

Lincoln said “as I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.” He too sacked people – he adjudged that he had to, doing his job, as he saw fit.

As regards links and quotes re proposed changes (by academics, John Bruton, etc) in the system:
I don’t disagree that changes are necessary. I’d certainly like to see more transparency and accountability by Ministers and Senior Public Servants. Meanwhile, we have to live with the system we have, until it is replaced with something better.

As regards democracy and the alternatives:
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”.

As regards social partnership:
I don’t disagree that it is not in the Constitution. But it is part and parcel of real politic today, so it has to be dealt with.

As regards “an unelected Central Bank Board” not monitoring or regulating the banks, I don’t disagree either ..... but what point are you making? Central Bank Boards are appointed by Government and not elected, even if they do have an important role. If these people are not doing their job, as happened with regulation of the financial system during the Celtic Tiger, then that issue needs to be addressed by Government.

As regards electing the Taoiseach, voters having a say in coalition policy, form of government envisaged in 1916, etc., we are where we are with the system we have. Changing it is another matter entirely, and change is usually prompted when voters get fed up enough to demand it. Signs are, this is beginning to happen and as austerity bites further in years to come, the voices demanding change will become louder.

It’s up to all of us to make our voices heard by those in power .... and that includes you and me. That’s democracy.

CDfm

golfwallah wrote: »

It’s up to all of us to make our voices heard by those in power .... and that includes you and me. That’s democracy.

It isn't as we live in a constitutional democracy and it doesn't follow it.

So who decided those things ?

Where does it come from this GAA ascendency model bypassing parliament ?

We are a small country and there are 166 TD's . They are not on the boards reporting to the Dail?

Republic of Ireland goes bust !!!!

golfwallah

CDfm wrote: »

It isn't as we live in a constitutional democracy and it doesn't follow it.

So who decided those things ?

Where does it come from this GAA ascendency model bypassing parliament ?

We are a small country and there are 166 TD's . They are not on the boards reporting to the Dail?

Republic of Ireland goes bust !!!!

Whoa there, now, you're splitting hairs!

Can't imagine anyone expressing views like this getting much support to bring about whatever type of democracy you have in mind.

Yes, we do have a constitutional democracy .... and, guess what? It's because the people voted for it.

Much easier to be a hurler on the ditch, making comments about a so called "GAA ascendency bypassing parliament". Name calling may make you feel better but it doesn't solve anything. You have to engage with the system to do that .... and that takes a lot of time and commitment, that most ordinary folk are not prepared to do.

People who go forward for election are a rare commodity. They have to commit almost all their lives to it when elected and, even when they succeed, can never satisfy everyone. Sure there are a few bad eggs .... but when I look around at countries like Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc., I thank God I live in Ireland, where we have a democracy, however flawed compared to the ideals of 1916, etc.

Going forward for Taoiseach, carries even more risk of opprobrium from the public, no matter what results you achieve -
"A leader is one who, out of madness or goodness, volunteers to take upon himself the woe of the people. There are few men so foolish, hence the erratic quality of leadership in the world" (John Updike).

I'm quite happy with what we have and the opportunities we have to change things gradually over time. Maybe we have too many TDs but AFAIK, Government have committed to do something about that.

And, by the way, Ireland is not bust .... we are working our way out of our problems.

Don't think it realistic or fair to damn all our politicians out of hand .... unless your'e prepared to roll up your sleeves and get involved yourself!

CDfm

golfwallah wrote: »

Whoa there, now, you're splitting hairs!

Can't imagine anyone expressing views like this getting much support to bring about whatever type of democracy you have in mind.

Yes, we do have a constitutional democracy .... and, guess what? It's because the people voted for it.


Don't think it realistic or fair to damn all our politicians out of hand .... unless your'e prepared to roll up your sleeves and get involved yourself!

That's a bit of a turnaround from your

As regards social partnership:
I don’t disagree that it is not in the Constitution. But it is part and parcel of real politic today, so it has to be dealt with.

As regards “an unelected Central Bank Board” not monitoring or regulating the banks, I don’t disagree either ..... but what point are you making? Central Bank Boards are appointed by Government and not elected, even if they do have an important role. If these people are not doing their job, as happened with regulation of the financial system during the Celtic Tiger, then that issue needs to be addressed by Government.

You don't disagree me and despite all the evidence in front of you say

Whoa there, now, you're splitting hairs!

All I am asking is how it happened and who decided to bypass the constitution and set up structures that avoid parliamentary controls.

That was hardly what what 1916 and the War of Independence was about.

golfwallah

@CDfm:

It’s a fair question about investigating and explaining how it (Social Partnership) happened and who decided to bypass the constitution and set up structures that avoid parliamentary controls (that is, if it can be shown that it did actually avoid them).

Although Social Partnership is not in the Constitution, its origins, the Programme for National Recovery (PNR) can be traced back to the General Elections of 1987.

From my own recollection and Wiki searches, the PNR was one of the explicit Fianna Fail election promises, that led to their winning in 1987.

You can read more about the PNR under http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/IRELAND/PROGRAMMEFORNATIONALRECOVERYPNR-IR.htm
For more info on Social Partnership see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Partnership

Apart from Public Service Pay awards, which would have been included in the figures for the Budget and the Finance Act and subject to Dail debates thereon, I don’t know what, if any, other parliamentary controls the PNR and its successors were subject to.

Maybe, some other poster could investigate and let us know.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

......

The voter elects their TD who in turn elects their party leader who then has a shot at being Taoiseach. So the only real decision the TD makes is who their party leader is.With a coalition the voter does not get a say on policy.

Who decided all this and when did this become our form of government ?

And how does this relate to the form of government envisaged in 1916 ???

Relate to what-

What form of government was envisaged by the 1916 leaders?

Bannasidhe

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Relate to what-

What form of government was envisaged by the 1916 leaders?

Well, it certainly could be argued that the use of the Whip System stifles debate in the Oireachtas as party members are forced to confirm to party policy.

Yet, the 1922 Constitution clearly states:

Article 20.

Each House shall make its own Rules and Standing Orders, with power to attach penalties for their infringement and shall have power to ensure freedom of debate, to protect its official documents and the private papers of its members, and to protect itself and its members against any person or persons interfering with, molesting or attempting to corrupt its members in the exercise of their duties.

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/E900003-004/

We certainly do not have freedom of debate - not just due to the Whip System, there is also widespread use of the Legislative Guillotine Mechanism where Bills are not allocated enough time for them to be debated and, of course, the good old Statutory Instruments which need no debate at all.

jonniebgood1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well, it certainly could be argued that the use of the Whip System stifles debate in the Oireachtas as party members are forced to confirm to party policy.

Yet, the 1922 Constitution clearly states:

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/E900003-004/

We certainly do not have freedom of debate - not just due to the Whip System, there is also widespread use of the Legislative Guillotine Mechanism where Bills are not allocated enough time for them to be debated and, of course, the good old Statutory Instruments which need no debate at all.

I agree with the analysis of our current system. My question though was "What form of government was envisaged by the 1916 leaders?" It could be added to that what form of government did War of Independence leaders envisage, or did they consider anything other than a separatist idea.

The 1916 leaders were executed so we can only go on their written or expressed views on this. I often ask questions and have a good idea of the answer but in this case I am not familiar with what the likes of Pearse, Clarke and Connolly would have wished should Ireland have got independence in 1916. Connolly and Pearse have left alot of writings but was there any detail into the form of government they would have liked. Connolly's socialist republic might not have suited the other signatories and it presumably would have required the democratic support of the whole country. As a conservative agricultural island a socialist government, even if republican may not have had support.

So to extend the question, What form of government was envisaged by the 1916 leaders and did they detail the practical aspects of how it would function? If we are to contrast what we have now with the wishes of 1916 then we need to look at what they wanted.

Bannasidhe

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I agree with the analysis of our current system. My question though was "What form of government was envisaged by the 1916 leaders?" It could be added to that what form of government did War of Independence leaders envisage, or did they consider anything other than a separatist idea.

The 1916 leaders were executed so we can only go on their written or expressed views on this. I often ask questions and have a good idea of the answer but in this case I am not familiar with what the likes of Pearse, Clarke and Connolly would have wished should Ireland have got independence in 1916. Connolly and Pearse have left alot of writings but was there any detail into the form of government they would have liked. Connolly's socialist republic might not have suited the other signatories and it presumably would have required the democratic support of the whole country. As a conservative agricultural island a socialist government, even if republican may not have had support.

So to extend the question, What form of government was envisaged by the 1916 leaders and did they detail the practical aspects of how it would function? If we are to contrast what we have now with the wishes of 1916 then we need to look at what they wanted.

Some of Connolly's views can be gleaned from articles such as Erin’s Hope. The End and the Means (1897) http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1897/erin/hope.htm

There can be little doubt that Connolly favoured a socialist republic.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Relate to what-

What form of government was envisaged by the 1916 leaders?

I have often asked people was James Connolly a democrat.

Lots of people will not commit to an answer, but, he did lead a group of suffragettes into the rising.

And one might say that he was .

@golfwallah

Although Social Partnership is not in the Constitution, its origins, the Programme for National Recovery (PNR) can be traced back to the General Elections of 1987.

From my own recollection and Wiki searches, the PNR was one of the explicit Fianna Fail election promises, that led to their winning in 1987.

This may well have been a wheeze to take the Unions out of Labour.

It is a bit odd that Labour isn't the declared political wing of the ICTU but for all other intents exercises considerable power with a foot in both camps.

But lets kick back to 1916 and an issue would have been patronage. I read something about heading Cork Port and Fire Service for instance not being available as jobs to Irish Catholics.

In 1916 there was not a universal franchise so these things bodies were not responsible to the people.

I think we would be on safe territory saying that the leaders of 1916 envisaged a parliament and that the parliament exercised power and the organs of state reported to it.

I do not think anyone envisaged that our politicians would deliberately build structures and coalitions with groups to get around the authority of parliament.

Would they have had an issue with civil service Mandarins and Trade Union leaders taking over and not being responsible and subservient to parliament . ? Would they have had a problem with the Civil Service developing power bases with interest groups and client representative groups.

Is the system responsible to the people and the Dail . ?

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Some of Connolly's views can be gleaned from articles such as Erin’s Hope. The End and the Means (1897) http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1897/erin/hope.htm

There can be little doubt that Connolly favoured a socialist republic.

Did he favour a democratic form of government with universal suffrage ?

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

Did he favour a democratic form of government with universal suffrage ?

Given that the Irish Citizen's Army was the only military force involved in 1916 which allowed women to bear arms and hold commissions as officers - which was why Markievicz fought as a member of the ICA - I think we can posit Connolly was in favour of universal suffrage.

What he was not in favour of was elites who were granted special privileges, easy access to government or allowed to dictate policy.
I think he would be horrified by recent events and how Irland turned out. Markievicz also held strong socialist views - Diane Norman's Terrible Beauty is the best work I have read on her.

I think one of the differences between Connolly/ Markievicz and the IRB/Irish Volunteers camp was motivation. C and M were of the belief that the only way the Irish working class (including farm labourers) were going to achieve any measure of fairness of employment and legal rights was in an independent Ireland where as the IRB/IV were acting out of a Brits Out/Patriotism place.

Ironically, neither C nor M could have foreseen how WWI would undermine the British class system and the whole concept of Imperialism and WWII would herald in a Labour government and the NHS in the UK.

So while the left became sidelined (and vilified) in the Free State and Republic - it came to power in Westminster and was able to implement the kind of legislation Connolly wished to see in an independent Ireland - legislation he believed would never be possible in the UK.

P. Breathnach

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Given that the Irish Citizen's Army was the only military force involved in 1916 which allowed women to bare arms ...

I don't often pick up on typos, but...

Bannasidhe

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't often pick up on typos, but...

oops ...

was distracted by the chocolate ice cream (with extra chocolate) I was making...

P. Breathnach

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I agree with the analysis of our current system. My question though was "What form of government was envisaged by the 1916 leaders?" ...

It might be an interesting question, but I don't think it a significant issue. Once Ireland became independent, the matter of government became the business of the people of Ireland. De Valera, with whom I would find little common ground, recognised this in formulating the 1937 Constitution and submitting it to a referendum of the people. That trumps any claim made on behalf of the 1916 leaders, the first Dáil, or the leaders of the war of independence.

P. Breathnach

Bannasidhe wrote: »

oops ...

was distracted by the chocolate ice cream (with extra chocolate) I was making...

Sleeves rolled up, I presume.

Bannasidhe

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Sleeves rolled up, I presume.

Wearing a Mrs Doyle type housecoat with a couple of enfield rifles hidden in the chicken coop in case the auxies came a calling.
I wanted to ensure I could bear arms while bare armed in tribute to Mná na hÉireann:p

jonniebgood1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Originally Posted by CDfm View Post
Did he favour a democratic form of government with universal suffrage ?

Given that the Irish Citizen's Army was the only military force involved in 1916 which allowed women to bear arms and hold commissions as officers - which was why Markievicz fought as a member of the ICA - I think we can posit Connolly was in favour of universal suffrage.

What he was not in favour of was elites who were granted special privileges, easy access to government or allowed to dictate policy.

Regarding democracy I would point out the obvious- The participants in the rising were 'revolutionary nationalists'. The other notable in this point is that the other group of nationalists could be considered 'constitutional nationalists'. My inference being that democracy was not their no. 01 aim.

Dr.Nightdub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Regarding democracy I would point out the obvious- The participants in the rising were 'revolutionary nationalists'. The other notable in this point is that the other group of nationalists could be considered 'constitutional nationalists'. My inference being that democracy was not their no. 01 aim.

Not necessarily. One group wanted to establish independent democracy within Ireland by revolutionary means, one by constitutional means.

CDfm

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

Not necessarily. One group wanted to establish independent democracy within Ireland by revolutionary means, one by constitutional means.

Pre 1916 Arthur Griffith's Sinn Fein was into dual monarchy.

The Home Rule Party had the Home Rule Act 1914.

Did the Irish Citizen Army have a formula ?

Did the Irish Volunteers have a policy ?

jonniebgood1

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

Not necessarily. One group wanted to establish independent democracy within Ireland by revolutionary means, one by constitutional means.

This is what I am searching for. Democracy is not mentioned in the Proclamation. What form of government was sought by Clarke, Mac Diarmada, MacDonagh, Pearse, Ceannt and Plunkett- did they have a preference.

golfwallah

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This is what I am searching for. Democracy is not mentioned in the Proclamation. What form of government was sought by Clarke, Mac Diarmada, MacDonagh, Pearse, Ceannt and Plunkett- did they have a preference.

Although there is conditional mention in the Proclamation of “the establishment of a permanent National Government, representative of the whole people of Ireland and elected by the suffrages of all her men and women”, there is no mention of democracy.

Good article in the Irish Times today, 10/04/2012, on this subject: “A greater paradox is that the State that ultimately emerged owed more to the democratic tradition of O’Connell, Parnell and Redmond than to the cult of blood sacrifice and mystical nationalism personified by 1916 leaders like Pearse and McDonagh.
See: http://www.irishtimes.com/indepth/oireachtas/90-years-of-democracy.htm

Reekwind

CDfm wrote: »

Did he favour a democratic form of government with universal suffrage ?

Hard to say really. Connolly's thinking was never particularly rigid and the wider Social-Democratic movement to which he, tenuously, belonged was also in a state of theoretical flux at the time. That said, his syndicalist influences aside, there's little in Connolly's writings to suggest that he held anything other than a orthodox Second International conception of the state; ie, public ownership of the economy and the state was still thought of primarily as an extension or opening of pre-existing parliamentary bodies

Thus the IRSP's 1893 manifesto called for:

1. Nationalisation of railways and canals.
2. Abolition of private banks and money-lending institutions and establishment of state banks, under popularly elected boards of directors, issuing loans at cost.
3. Establishment at public expense of rural depots for the most improved agricultural machinery, to be lent out to the agricultural population at a rent covering cost and the management alone.
4. Graduated income tax on all incomes over £400 per annum in order to provide funds for pensions to the aged infirm and widows and orphans.
5. Legislative restriction of the hours of labour to 48 per week and establishment of a minimum wage.
6. Free maintenance for all children.
7. Gradual extension of the principle of public ownership and supply of all the necessaries of life.
8. Public control and management of National Schools by boards elected by popular ballot for that purpose alone.
9. Free education up to the highest university grades.
10. Universal suffrage

All of which is distinctly tame by later standards and very much in the SPD model. This programme called for a 'democratic republic' that would merely serve as the predecessor for the 'socialist republic'

But... there's no doubt that Connolly was in step with the Zimmerwald Left and it wouldn't be remarkable to describe him as a proto-Leninist. He almost certainly would have been an enthusiastic supporter of the Russian Revolution, even if the lack of organisation would have rendered the IRSP a poor candidate for Bolshevisation. When the fringes of the European revolutionary wave did begin to lap at Britain and Ireland (in Glasgow, Belfast, Limerick, etc) it took the form of local soviets/councils rather than Social-Democratic orthodoxy and the call for the Workers' Republic appeared much more radical in tone

So it's perhaps best to suggest that conceptions of the Workers' Republic were, in line with European trends, quite different in 1916 than the Civil War years

jonniebgood1 wrote:

My inference being that democracy was not their no. 01 aim.

What was their objective? Even Connolly, the most theoretically literate and sanest of the 1916 leaders, was fairly inconsistent by the standards of his international peers. I don't think that Pearse and the the romantics had any real vision for Ireland's future

It's worth noting, however, that the grassroots independence movement that did develop - both in its labour and nationalist orientated forms - was generally democratic in nature and operated under the assumption that Ireland would be a democracy. Perhaps it fell into this by default, the ballot box being Sinn Fein's springboard to power, but there did exist the germ of a genuinely democratic society. The tragedy is that this was never allowed to develop fully

golfwallah

CDfm wrote: »

We are a small country and there are 166 TD's .

Did a bit of digging on Google and found the Progress Report on the Programme for Government, dated March 2012 (under Political Reform, Reduction in number of TDs), which gives the following info:
The Electoral (Amendment) Act 2011 provided for change in terms of reference of the Constituency Commission to effect that the number of TDs will be reduced to between 153 and 160. A Constituency Commission was established in July 2011 with a remit to report to the Chairman of the Dáil no later than 3 months after the Central Statistics Office (CSO) publish their final report on population results. The CSO is due to publish these results in March 2012.
New legislation will then be required to address the Commission’s recommendations. See also http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2011/PfG_Progress_Report_March_2012.pdf

CDfm wrote: »

They are not on the boards reporting to the Dail?

Not sure what you mean by this, whether it's about Dail attendance or the jobs TDs are given. I would be more concerned about what meaningful work and results TDs are achieving (aside from holding clincs, availing of photo opportunities, etc.). Maybe you could research that one yourself and let us know?

CDfm

golfwallah wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by this, whether it's about Dail attendance or the jobs TDs are given. I would be more concerned about what meaningful work and results TDs are achieving (aside from holding clincs, availing of photo opportunities, etc.). Maybe you could research that one yourself and let us know?

What I mean that with the exception of voting on the party leader and taoiseach the backbench td's do little

the dail gets by-passed as a decision making body and ot rubberstamps agreements etc

so at best the dail is marginalized

golfwallah

CDfm wrote: »

What I mean that with the exception of voting on the party leader and taoiseach the backbench td's do little

Can you produce evidence to support this, to lend a bit more weight to your argument? Maybe I'm not as clued in as you to what TDs do every day, but AFAIK, most if not all, are involved in Dail committees, etc.

There could be more and I've no idea how much of their time such activities take up, but a bit more research would be helpful before drawing the conclusion that they "do little". Wouldn't you agree?

CDfm

golfwallah wrote: »

Can you produce evidence to support this, to lend a bit more weight to your argument? Maybe I'm not as clued in as you to what TDs do every day, but AFAIK, most if not all, are involved in Dail committees, etc.

There could be more and I've no idea how much of their time such activities take up, but a bit more research would be helpful before drawing the conclusion that they "do little". Wouldn't you agree?

Do you look at a TD as being a constituency errand boy or a parliamentarian.? For errand boy read parish pump politics as opposed to clientism.

By that definition the late Tony Gregory was a very successful TD.

I had a couple of threads before on the corporate state.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=69753787

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70585963

John Bruton is very forthright saying Ireland is run by civil servants who use the Dail to rubberstamp their rule. Now if you have a conversation with party political types they sidestep the issue as by definition what it is saying is that TD's have little power or influence.

Bruton is by profession a barrister and pointedly refused the FG nomination for the Presidency.

This is history and not politics so we can say what we want.

EDIT & of course Lemass

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056256224

So has the balance shifted from the Dail and the people to an "unelected" corporate state elite.

HavingCrack

Reekwind wrote: »

. I don't think that Pearse and the the romantics had any real vision for Ireland's future

Did De Valera have any particular vision for Ireland in 1916 or did his views develop later? I am not overly familiar with his political views until the War of Independance and Civil War.