The Pillars of Irish society, as I see them, are The Media, Politics, The Civil/Public Service, and Academia. You can click on the links, if you like, to skip to those Sub-Chapters now but they might make a little more sense if this Sub-Chapter is read first.
IMPORTANT NOTE: I’d like to start by saying that it is not my intention to unduly criticise or disparage the Pillars – I would like you to remember that.
But if you are working within the Pillars, the content of this Sub-Chapter might challenge ideas that you have about your role in assisting the Focus Group – if you have such a role. Even if you don’t, the content may not at all fit with your experience so it could be thought-provoking or eye-opening! Or, alternatively, it might fit …….
Like my description of the characteristics of the Focus Group in the last Sub-Chapter my intention – while reflecting the realities of what I observe in the Pillars – is to be respectful and measured. Like I also said in the last Sub-Chapter, the last thing that I’d want is to exaggerate or be sensational.
Yet I believe that it is just as important in this Sub-Chapter as it was in the last to reflect reality – where something is at – rather than pretend that it is the way we’d like it to be.
And that is what I try to do not only here but in the entire website.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well – you may justifiably ask – who am I to write a discourse and/or critique of the Media, Politics etc. etc.?
While I’ve never been a journalist or studied media, I’m a keen reader/viewer of media outlets and I always have been – what I will write might make sense and equally it may not. You can decide for yourself!
I tried my hand at politics and while my time involved was short I think I picked up enough to have a strong opinion on the profession – and it’s impact on our Focus Group.
When it comes to the civil/public service, I’m on slightly firmer ground – I worked in the public service for a long time, and my work in the charity sector brings me into close contact with Government services.
I have never worked in academia but I spent a fair share of years in college as a student (4 full-time and 3 part-time years) so I have some notion of what academia is like. And, like the civil/public service, I come into contact with academia quite a bit in the course of my work.
They are the four Pillars, and I make an effort to portray them – and what they support (good and bad) – in a diagram below.
| Professionalism – Injustice – Competitiveness – Snobbery – Elitism – Disconnect – Fairness – Experience – The Law – Firm Grasp of Non-Essentials – Detachment – Education/Training – Selection – Prejudices – Risk Averse – Financial Strength – Resilience – Longevity – Struggle with Morale – Security – Consistency – Hierarchy |
The Media Politics Civil/Public Service Academia
Some aspects of Pillars’ behaviour is strange – and seem in a way not to make any sense. This is notable in financial decisions involving Government contracts. They always go to either the cheapest tender or the person/company with the most influence.
In my days in the public service I remember contracts being given to sub-standard providers when it would have been – in the long term – make more economic sense to choose better quality.
Take the example of food for Direct Provision Centres. A huge multinational company might be cheaper, but giving a contract to a small local supplier would generate local employment, keep people off the dole, and even, perhaps, offer opportunities for the very people for whom the service is intended – those in the Centres themselves.
I know, I know, it’s easy for me to expound on what should be done, it’s another issue actually doing it. Doing it requires creativity, taking a risk, and a bit of hard work.
And it also takes a lot more time!
I remember (once again, from my public service days) how easy it is to simply award a tender to the lowest bidder instead of putting a bit of effort into the preparation of the tender and then more work into convincing those holding the purse-strings that whatever is purchased has added, long-term value.
I will come back to this subject later when I will argue that the cost of preventative family support is far, far lower than the downstream cost of punitive sanctions (such as care homes or prisons) when members of families who need support but don’t get it drift into drug misuse and criminal behaviour.
On the other hand, sometimes – and amidst all the penny-pinching – under Freedom of Information requests, journalists discover that a Government body has paid way over the expected price for, say, property or land, or a service of some sort, but no-one ever seems to answer why.
Another kind of strange Pillars behaviour is that they set up entities to highlight aspects of injustice, unfairness, discrimination etc. that arise because of their own policies and practices. Here is an example of a Pillars-funded entity reporting negatively on practices that are a direct result of classic Pillars-type thinking. Real suffering by real people result from such actions (or inactions). While the IHREC are right to highlight such matters – and I have great respect for the work that they do – I fear that reporting on them will make little or no difference to those who are suffering!
While I will be giving examples of Pillars’ inefficiency, wastefulness etc. I acknowledge that in a proper democracy that ensures that ordinary people have a voice there will always a measure of inefficiency.
In fact, it might be argued that inefficiency is the corner stone of democracy.
For example one could give examples of many situations where the cost of a court case would be far more than cost of a law officer with absolute power appointed by a king or emperor deciding who was right and who was wrong. No matter how wise or fair the appointed law officer is, in such a situation the parties to the dispute do not have independent advocates arguing for their clients and adhering to rules of law underwritten by a constitution voted on by all the people of the country – surely a necessity for true democracy.
What the website will argue is that the power structures and inefficiency of the Pillars (often referred to as red tape) is far in excess of what it needs to be, and that decision making involves virtually no risk; because excessive bureaucracy which inhibits, or even stops positive progress always seems to prevail.
And, crucial to the subject matter, I propose that, unlike those who can afford to pay and choose, the poor, almost always, (and particularly the Focus Group) have to accept what the Pillars think is good for them!