2.3.5 Pillar Two - Politics

The second Pillar, which I will now describe, is the pillar of Politics.

I first got interested in politics when I was a teenager.  I always remember the debates on the current affairs programmes of the time such as Seven Days, and later Today Tonight.  I liked the cut and thrust (as they say) of political debate, the clever wisecracks of Ministers and Deputies as they vied for the upper hand in debates, and when I was a little older I liked reading political magazines like Magill and similar that gave an alternative left-leaning view. (I didn’t realise at the time that what I was attracted to in the debating was the competition – I wasn’t aware that little or nothing would actually change).

I clearly remember, as a teenager, having the thought that if those in Dáil Éireann really wanted the best for the country it would be better if they all worked together instead of fighting with each other.  Surely they’d get more done, methought. (I’m a bit naive that way)!

I mentioned in the Introduction that magazines such as Resurgence changed my thinking at a particular time in my life.  One phrase that certainly influenced me (that I had not heard up to my mid-thirties) was ‘we do not inherit the Earth from our parents; we keep it in trust for our children’, attributed to the Native American Chief Seattle.

Buoyed up by this and other thoughts that I considered a lot wiser than ‘time is money’ or ‘knowledge is power’, or ‘the early bird catches the worm’ and such sayings, I joined the Green Party/Comhaontas Glas in the mid nineteen-nineties and was a member of the Limerick Branch.  The reason that I chose the Greens was that I was never a fan (nor am I still a fan) of the left–right division which I believe condemns society to a constant lose-lose with two opposing forces that are mirror images bringing out the worst in each other and feeding into the media’s need for endless conflict.

Well I never thought that being involved in the Greens would have fashioned my opinions about protection of vulnerable children but it was actually a very important part of my education in this regard.

I viewed, up close, how idealism is distorted, how energy is sucked out of creativity, and how principle and commitment to radical change metamorphoses into well-intentioned compromise that appeases forces that are totally at variance with the original ideas and ideals that one starts out with.

I also got an appreciation of how resilient the political system is to real change, how many advantages it has in promoting its own agenda, and how its norms and values drive national policies (and following from that, its practices) even though most people know that many of these practices are not achieving that much, and/or are (simply put) an awful waste of public money!

After a few years of frustration (that I could write loads about – but won’t) I left the Greens when the leadership group were discussing going into coalition with Labour and Fine Gael around 2000-2001.  I was totally against this move and unfortunately when the Greens finally went into Government in 2007 with Fianna Fáil, almost 30 years of painstaking work at community level was practically wiped out in four short years.

Due to people’s worries about the global climate crisis the Greens are now on the rise again.  I hope that they don’t make the same mistakes as the past.

And actually, when I think of it now, I didn’t leave the Green Party, really – I left politics, with the realisation eventually dawning on me that I did not have the skill-set that politics requires.

In theory, in a democracy, politicians are elected to Government to represent the wishes of the people – i.e. what the people want to happen in their country in the short and long term.

I think that it is reasonable to state that the integrity of people who end up in Government in a democracy is more or less representative of the integrity of our general population, and where we are at in our evolution or development.

In a best case scenario, politicians provide leadership and inspiration, promote their ideas with energy and vigour, and govern (like a governor in an engine) so that an economy does not, as we say, overheat, public services are dispensed fairly and equitably, and corporate behaviour is regulated so that the general public are not rolled over by unscrupulous people who want to take advantage of them, i.e. that things don’t get out of control.

There is always a balance to be struck between the so-called Nanny state, over-controlling and over-regulating everything, and allowing entrepreneurial people to express themselves fully and thereby contribute to the overall wealth of a population.

I am sure that you have heard of the term grassroots.

Competent politicians reflect on what the grassroots need as much as what they want, (this is related to governance above), strike a balance between the two, keep their finger on the pulse of the people, and listen carefully to the concerns of those who are on the ground.

During my short flirtation with political life (described in the last post) I began to directly experience how those in power become disconnected from what is reality, or truth, or even our felt experience.  When I say in power I mean different forms of power – not just political power – because even though a lot of power to change things is vested in politics, politicians constitute only a fraction of the total amount of power in society in general.

Money and status are also important when it comes to distribution of power – many people who have power in the context of influence in society have something to gain financially, or are loyal servants of those who have a lot to gain financially, or are deferential to those who are wealthy and/or have high status.

People who have money and status try and influence politicians, and, in turn, politicians (with some notable exceptions) regard people who have both money and status very highly.  (Here is just one example of many that I could give)!

The connection between politicians and big biz contributes greatly to the sense of disconnect I mention above, because the last thing that most wealthy and powerful people want is a close and strong connection between poor people and their rights as citizens.

Like, what if the poor became uppity?

(I will write more about this in the Chapter on Power and Control in Society).

As a general rule it can be said (and most people will notice) that politicians seem to be a lot more connected to people’s problems (and the concerns of the grassroots) when they are in opposition than when they are in power!

This is, of course, because priorities change after elections when full knowledge of the state of the country’s finances is available to the elected TD.  A more cynical reason might be put forward too – that is, now that the TD is elected, he simply forgets everything that he has been promising because there is little or no motivation to follow through on the promises – until, of course, the next election looms.  (See next post – Politicians and Addiction).

In the world in general, I propose that there is a direct relationship between the level of functionality, health and equality in society and the disconnectedness of people in power to those who are powerless. It is very unlikely that this disconnection will disappear in the foreseeable future – I imagine that with very few exceptions (though I don’t have enough knowledge to say for definite) it has existed in all societies and cultures as long as history has been written.

This is why the task of bridging this disconnect (in terms of the Focus Group, and community work in general), is so important for community workers and leaders.

I have often wondered (like many people do) how some politicians can do obvious, unbelievable U-turns and take totally contradictory stances to what they might have espoused at a different time or in a different place.  This behaviour is observed (and constantly criticised) by ordinary people, but politicians themselves don’t even seem to notice it. And the politicians that are most adept at it appear to be those who get into positions of power and influence!

Some of this behaviour can be explained by election promises made during the frantic race to get into power at all costs (confirmed by the wily old fox that I mentioned at the bottom of this post) but from my observations it goes a lot deeper than that.

There is an old saying that the first casualty in war is truth, and the same, I observe, is often true of politics.

Almost daily, we are plied with with vague justifications and half-truths to either defend something that is indefensible, excuse something that is inexcusable, or else to get us to agree to something that, if we were told the whole truth we’d be totally against.

The day-to-day conduct of some of our political leaders leans so far towards what people often call trick o’ the loop type behaviour that it is impossible to ignore.

As a substantial part of my work is concerned with addiction and addictive behaviour I began to wonder about similarities that I notice between active addiction and politics. Of course, maybe only I notice these similarities, and others might not see any. So to check that out – permit me to offer another little quiz.

And remember, addiction isn’t confined to drink and drugs. We can be addicted to gambling, smoking, shopping, sex/porn, work, eating, prescribed medication, money/saving, exercise, people-pleasing and more besides. Also, not all addicts are on skid row, some people can hide their addiction very well, and hold down a steady job, own businesses and become very wealthy.

Now; a little warning – this quiz is very judgmental; it’s just to get us thinking!

In the list 1 to 20 in the Table below, I invite you to think of what you know about active addiction – and then think of political life in general. If you think that an addict has a particular trait, put a tick in the A box.  If you think that a politician might have the same trait, tick the box under P.  (If you don’t print out the page, you will have to remember them in your head).

For example, 1, Denies Reality is so common among active addicts that it is probable that almost everyone would put a tick in A. Would you put a tick under P? Whereas in 2, Very Charming, P might be ticked but some people might give A a tick and some might not.

Think carefully now, and try to be objective, because this is a very subjective exercise. (For example, if you are either a politician or an active addict – or both – you might not see any similarities at all).

Now I know – not for the first time – I am being a bit provocative. I am just asking you to have a look at the list and make up your mind from your own experiences and observations throughout your life.

And, as is plain, anyone in any walk of life can have some, many or all of the above traits. The reason why I am picking politicians is that they have so much influence in society – which is the reason that I am including this Sub-Chapter at all!

And what sparked me to include this post is that every time I listen to a talk show on the radio or watch one on TV, and hear politicians talking across each other, taking standpoints that are impossible to reconcile, speaking loudly, decisively and with an authoritative tone, and using terms like ‘Let me be absolutely clear about this’, or, ‘I can state without fear of contradiction’ or when I read about decisions that are made that everyone knows make no sense, or when I hear a politician defending a decision that he had been totally against a short time previously, I pick up a few similarities.

I will give three examples here:

1): When I was writing parts of the website there were many World War One and Easter 1916 commemorations which many politicians attended. All the commemorations had this mixture of solemnity, calmness, serenity, nostalgia and, here and there, a hint of glory.  The atmosphere at the commemorations bore no resemblance to the realities experienced when killing other people and being killed oneself.  Those realities are terror, abject fear, brutality, cruelty and a degree of acute physical and emotional pain as well as mental torture that we’d never want our loved ones to experience.  At the same time as all these commemorations were going on we were being softened up by our politicians to join some sort of European military force to protect ourselves against some imagined enemy.  This is a kind of 1, (denial of reality).

Why?

Because if the powers that be (European politicians) wanted to promote peace and truly commemorate those who died needlessly in 1914-1918 they would be actively encouraging the ending of the arms industries throughout Europe, giving good example to the World in general instead of seeing those industries as opportunities for making vast profits from others’ misfortunes – and endangering ourselves as well.

2): The housing crisis is one of the biggest crises facing our country in my lifetime. Every political party states that solving the housing crisis is their number one priority. It is happening because of the ideological stance of Governments since the late 1990’s when they ran down public house building.  (Public house-building, that is, not the building-of-public-houses). It seems to be impossible for the Government to have any more than a totally meaningless role in the housing market.  A house now costs so much that it is (in most cases) impossible for a mortgage to be granted by a bank on one average wage.  For a couple with children, this denies the opportunity for one parent to stay at home – if that is their wish – and choose full time child-rearing as would have been possible even a few decades ago. Also, it widens the gap between rich and poor. This is because cash-rich people can now buy houses and rent them out to people desperate to get a roof over their head – where the only object is profit.  This manifests in a mixture of 10 (distortion of others’ objective experience) – i.e. that the private sector can meet the housing needs of a population – when ordinary people can see it can’t) and 20 (promise more than can be delivered).

Why?

If successive Governments – this is going on for more than 25 years – wished to truly solve the housing crisis they would set up a publicly owned housing agency that would actually build houses with proper (once again publicly owned) facilities for people who will live in them.

3): The Troubles in Northern Ireland are not really over but great progress has been made over the past few years.  A substantial amount of talk now concerns which flags to fly, what streets can be used as marching routes, how we will incorporate Gaeilge, and, latterly, the fall-out from Brexit. However the principal issues that are still a long way from being resolved are the poverty and disempowerment in communities that have been neglected for generations – which were, (on both sides – actually) significant causative factors in the Troubles anyway.  This is manifest in 8 (using conflict to avoid issues).

Why?

The politicians of most influence in Northern Ireland cannot see beyond the one-up-man-ship that feeds into the disconnect that assists in keeping them in power. Coming together to really hammer out a solution, together, that would significantly alleviate the poverty and disempowerment that were contributory factors in the Troubles in the first place appears to be beyond them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I hope that you don’t think that I am being unduly harsh here – it might make sense to some, it might not to others. In the next post I will develop the theme further when I explore what I call the smokescreen.

Just as an aside, I know many people in politics who play the minimum of games, promote responsibility, challenge the above, and try to have a long term view.

But, I will ask, from your observations, do you think that they form critical mass among the body politic?

Why is it that it appears to the rest of us that the normal state of politics and government is stumbling-from-crisis-to-crisis? And the coherence, strong leadership, integrity that politicians talk about seems to be forever an aspiration?

Is the bluff and bluster, endless debate, and slagging each other off just a smokescreen so that the dysfunctional system can work away behind it, with minimum disturbance, with the fervent hope of those within it being that it all goes unnoticed by the rest of us?

And is the smokescreen is a charade, a piece of entertainment played out for the public to feed the egos of the principal actors?

In the previous post I invited you to ponder on the similarities between political life and addiction.  It is arguable that both addicts and (some) politicians are so immersed in the behaviour patterns that most of them – like Plato’s lie that does not know that it is a lie; the lie in the soul – are not aware that they are dysfunctional anyway.

That is the reason that I included the post at all.

And what does the smokescreen consist of?

Well one way of covering things up and ensuring that sloppiness, doing favours for friends, engaging in sharp practice and even sometimes downright wrongdoing goes hidden (and unaccounted for) is boring us to tears with the detail. What I mean by detail is who said what to whom, when they said it, speculation as to why they said or didn’t say it, the long and detailed debates, discussions about the appropriateness, format and methods of investigations and enquiries, using buzzwords, entertaining us as they make fun of each other, and the perpetuation of the disconnect between those in the Pillars and the rest of us in our understanding of what the essentials are.

But the thickest smokescreen of all is the fight.

Listening to politicians fighting on radio and TV, talking over each other, continually trading insults, being disrespectful and discourteous, and having to win at all costs highlights to me that, unlike a healthy argument, in a fight the person who is the strongest, or the smartest, or the most quick-thinking – like the fast processors mentioned here – or the loudest wins.  The justness or otherwise of their cause is irrelevant.

Now many legal people go into politics and a possible link between the legal profession and politics is that, all too often, winning is more important than the truth, or fairness, or who might suffer, or what will really benefit the people who are supposed to be the concern of the players.

I often wonder if there is a link between debating in schools and arguing for things that are against our principles or that we don’t believe in?  Perhaps not, but that doesn’t stop me wondering……. 

And while truth, and nothing but the truth is usually spoken, the whole truth is usually avoided as it can be very uncomfortable.

Politicians do not argue because an argument is about seeking out what I might call a common truth.  The reason why I use the term common truth is that judgements that we make in highly charged situations of conflict are filtered through so many of our life’s experiences, cultural norms, family of origin norms, values, core beliefs about oneself and others not to mention, (in the case of politicians), our party loyalty, that our opinion, or stance in the situation of conflict is what I might call a virtual truth.

That is, it appears to us to be so true that we accept it as objective reality, whereas the person with whom we are arguing definitely doesn’t, and indeed a third party would in all probability have a different opinion or take a different stance also.

The long-term outcome of all the fighting and trading of insults, unfortunately, is that the general public perceive politicians as being people who struggle in the integrity department. The media, of course, feed into this. I recently heard a journalist describing a debate between two politicians as a shooting match. I have also heard, during elections, phrases like battle lines are drawn, and the size of a political party’s war chest. One report that I read about a proposed cabinet reshuffle (where some Ministers were predicted to lose their jobs) said that there would be high profile casualties, with blood on the floor. These are phrases that are regularly used.

That people have the idea that they are all the same and, after the fighting and trading of insults, drink pints together in the Dáil bar is also interesting.

The word integrity is a bit like the Irish word macánta [1] – it’s not possible for me to say that I have integrity (like I can say that I have brown eyes) – it is really up to others to decide one way or the other.

I believe that much of the anger among the public during the austerity of the last recession was due to the perceived lack of integrity (which led to obvious unfairness) during the entire process of implementing the cuts, not the cuts themselves.

And very little has changed, in my lifetime anyway, in this.

Most people who have any interest at all in current affairs or politics will have examples of politicians (and even political leaders) abusing privileges that they bestow upon themselves and feathering their own nests, while imposing so-called cuts that hurt ordinary people and in particular vulnerable people.  The fact that they are able to garner enough votes from party colleagues to become leaders in the first place speaks volumes about how politicians might be affected by the characteristics described in the previous post.

(Of course there are many politicians who promise less, but in the long run give more – this, I believe anyway, leans towards integrity).

Wait a minute!

There is nothing wrong with putting oneself forward to have a leadership role in society – it is a noble – and risky thing – to do.  And it is very reasonable to assume that those who do put themselves forward, (politicians) are just a reflection of society at large. 

That is, the level of integrity, honesty, trustworthiness and general decency in society is reflected in the kind of politicians we have.  What I mean is, if, for example, 80% of people are honest, upright, etc. in a particular society, the likelihood is that about 80% of politicians will be the same.

And also, I’m not saying all politicians have all the traits above – I know many who don’t – it’s just that these are the traits that, perhaps, the politician needs to look out for.  (Just like a tendency to be judgemental, angry with the system, opinionated and sometimes acting the martyr are the traits that those of us who think that we can help others have to be alert to).

But summing up – and this is the interesting bit – maybe what all the above implies is that in order to be popular politicians have to be lacking in integrity. Because if we ordinary people really wanted people with integrity to lead us that is the way politicians would be.

As I said in other parts of the website – this post is not to cast judgement – rather it is to encourage you to think deeply about power in society.

[1]. Macánta is a word in Gaeilge that means uncorruptible, generous, caring, fearless, courageous – I could go on!

There are a number of areas of interest in any country that calls itself civilised (and functional, and healthy) that should be off limits to the private sector.

They are Education, Health, and Justice.

I believe that the involvement of people whose motivation is to make substantial amounts of money in these areas will damage (and has done a lot of damage) to the integrity of all three.

So Government policy and regulation should favour public involvement and ownership to the extent that it is far more attractive, cost effective and straightforward for the public to access public services in all three than opt for a private service.

But these are not the only fields in which a responsible Government should have an interest.

I propose that other absolutely necessary and fundamental infrastructural elements of society such as housing, food, finance and transportation should follow what we in Ireland used to call the Semi-State model which worked reasonably well for many decades. (Semi-state companies started in the much-looked-down-upon, supposedly backward 1950’s when, most modern commentators would assert, nothing of importance happened! [1]).

That does not mean that someone cannot invest in, be entrepreneurial and make a good living or even a lot of money out of any of the above – but – once again, they are too important to the well-being of society to be left to unscrupulous corporate influences.

Yes, I know, this is all a bit Utopian, but is must be remembered that loads of research has shown how the two-tier society which contains so much inequality is bad for the vast majority of us.

And for the Focus Group – it is disastrous.

Starting at the back of the queue, and confronted by so many obstacles that those who start at the front of the queue cannot imagine, is it any wonder that so many within the Focus Group go on to pursue activities that are destructive to themselves and society at large.

And this is where regulation by those who we put into power to look after our (and our children’s) welfare and concerns comes in.  In order to regulate (or govern) properly, people need to have integrity.  And the principal building block, the keystone of basic integrity is moral courage.

Good enough governance (that is, regulation) involves promoting the interests of all the population while at the same time facing down those that demand, lobby, and pressurise to gain advantage for themselves and their friends.  (Defending the indefensible is the consequence of acceding to the pressures of those that demand – see 5, 8 and 20 in the list in the post on Politics and Addiction).

Because politicians are the gatekeepers of regulation, they need to have traits which are the opposite of all those described in that post.  Some do – but it would appear that many, unfortunately, don’t.

Finally, it is interesting to see what kinds of things politicians will regulate and what they will not.

They will tackle all sorts of so-called controversial issues and then take credit for resultant change.  Over the past 25 years or so in Ireland, politicians have regulated plastic bags, smoking in pubs, and held referendums on the rights of children, gay marriage, abortion and – wow – blasphemy!

These issues and referendums were, in respect of difficulty, like scoring a goal from the penalty spot with no goalie.  Well – maybe abortion was a bit trickier than the others – perhaps there was a goalie….

But things that challenge powerful and wealthy vested interests (in particular in housing, health and education) seem impossible to change so that the common good will be served.

I invite you to speculate as to why this is so?

[1]. In addition to the establishment of Semi-State companies, a huge and vitally important project, rural electrification, also happened in the 1950’s. This was done by the State – not private enterprise. Contrast how that was done, with the current (pun unintended) overpriced plan to install countrywide broadband – which is, of course, being entrusted to the private sector!

One of the traits in the list in the post on Politics and Addiction is defending the indefensible.

We have had so many obscenely expensive enquiries into wrongdoing over the past number of years in Ireland that most of us have lost count.  (As a friend of mine joked, the enquiries have been so expensive that we need to have an enquiry into the enquiries).

If we constantly engage in behaviour that is lacking in integrity then these time consuming enquiries (with legal practices charging thousands per day – and the State happy to pay out) will be a constant feature of our lives. Yet politicians (and many other powerful interests too) seem to be almost welded to the kind of behaviour that inevitably leads to them.

In these enquiries, we always enquire as to what happened, as a prelude to who is to blame.  Would it not be more interesting to enquire as to who lost, or who was disadvantaged or even who suffered because of the decisions we are enquiring into.  Such an enquiry would have a much better chance of staying focused on people, and grounded in reality, rather than become an intellectual or complex legal affair yielding nothing of value in the end – full of sound and fury signifying nothing – as I remember from my Macbeth schooldays.

I observe that even younger politicians cannot seem to resist the behaviour that leads to enquiries.  The old joke about shifting the deckchairs on the Titanic is a bit on the extreme side but it often comes into my mind when I hear about some decisions, (or declarations) that politicians make on difficult or challenging issues.

If we are in touch with reality we will acknowledge that if the ship is sinking we need to act fast.  But when all we can do is, (instead of cooperating and plugging the hole), is blame, accuse and criticise, it’s much easier to claim that individuals within a system are guilty of wrongdoing or even make mistakes, and then punish, expel or re-educate them, than to ponder on the possibility that the entire system is dysfunctional or at least not fit for purpose.

In this respect, a lot of people outside political life feel that politics is a game that never ends.  (And signs on, sometimes prominent sports people are approached by political parties to stand for election).  And the sporting nature of politics is reflected in our language when we say that something has become a political football! 

I believe that the fact that politics is a kind of sport is a big challenge for democracy.  Like all sports, it’s played out in public – as much for our entertainment as for substantive change.

Even the most well-meaning and generous spirited politician will baulk when it comes to really advocating for and speaking up publicly on behalf of the most disadvantaged in our society.

Now in fairness – some politicians – to their great credit – work behind the scenes in a low profile manner supporting unpopular causes, and do not ask for much publicity. 

This is laudable but does it not demonstrate that 1): politicians will always chose popular causes for their high-profile work and 2): speaking up for the most disadvantaged in our society is not what we, the general public, want to see politicians spending much time on!

Generally, in the mainstream, politicians hold a short term election-to-election view and as many people in the Focus Group do not vote there is nothing to be gained from arguing strongly to alter the structures of society so that they can be included in a real way in decisions that concern them.

The norm for politicians when questioned about very difficult decisions like homelessness, imprisonment, children at risk and such important matters is to make the aspirational statements which have little or no impact in the long term.

It very easy to find examples of this, and I believe that it is very important for community workers who are passionate about protecting vulnerable children not to blame ………. but rather to remember the limitations of politicians and politics in general in his respect!