The Decline Democracy; How We Need To Change The System - Not Just The Parties.

We see, for example, that the various political forms of the modern
European states serve to strengthen the domination of the bourgeoisie over the
proletariat. - V I Lenin

Probably more pertinent than the current economic decline - and it is inherently linked to it - is the decline of democracy in Ireland and globally.  'The convergence between the crisis of democracy and the financial and economic global crisis is a major social and political threat' (Pavel; 2012). Let's look at recent political and media behaviour in Ireland and elsewhere for some insight on how it might reflect a system which is not realistically democratic.

Labour, prior to their election, promised to 'protect child benefit'; a promise we now know was just a false selling-point to win votes before the general election.  Labour Minister Pat Rabbitte was questioned about that broken promise on RTÉ recently to which he admitted, 'Well isn't that what you tend to do during an election'.  This, coming from a Labour minister is particularly significant because they were seen by their voters as being somehow different; that they would protect the working-class from economic injustices and exploitation.  In the US, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper moderated a Republican presidential debate and asked one of the candidates an immigration-related question.  The candidate effectively ignored the question and rambled on.  When he was pushed by Cooper to answer more directly, the politician said, 'You get to ask the questions, I get to answer like I want to'.

Partly due to these kinds of attitudes, there is a perceived disregard, and real disregard for the principles, hopes and will of ordinary people by capitalist politicians.  Mainstream media should receive a large portion of blame for this.  If it is taken for granted that politicians lie, corporate and state-funded media add to this decline of democracy by knowingly broadcasting political lies without properly or sufficiently addressing them as such.  As I discuss later, it's in the media's interest not to fully address these discrepancies and lies.

At the recent children's referendum, there was a turnout of just 33.5% according to the Irish Times. Add to that the fact that the Government illegally used taxpayers money to pay for its own propaganda during the referendum campaign; yet, to my knowledge, there has been no outcry or calls from mainstream media to have another fair and democratic referendum (update: Irish Times report claims information material had an 'emotional influence' on electorate - it was not neutral). There were also no political parties, and no visible media campaign which highlighted concerns about passing the referendum.  Few questioned why we were having this particular referendum, when the X Case still has to be legislated for regarding abortion rights - which would have seemed a greater priority - and has come back to haunt the Government since the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar.  These alone combine as an extremely worrying trend of events.  The children's referendum was no doubt needed, but it was executed poorly, and was used mainly as a PR excercise for a Government coalition losing popularity.

The children's referendum is not a one off event regarding poor turnout. The fiscal treaty, or austerity treaty referendum also had very low turnout of just 50.6% according to RTÉ.  With such low turnout numbers, even for more immediately significant referenda such as the "austerity treaty", one must question if the electorate in Ireland feel listened to, or recognise that their vote holds a level of importance?  If there was a sense that our voices would be heard, or that the constitutional questions being asked of us were truly relevant, I expect turnout would be far higher.  In reality we have no say over our constitution at all - we merely answer a question put forward to us by the politicians who happen to be in power at the given time - and their motives are entirely divorced from the majority of the population (that is except candidates from the socialist party, who actively campaign for a revolutionary more advanced and just social and economics system).

Ireland is not alone in witnessing the shredding of its democracy - if you can call it that.  Britain has also witnessed very low, and ever reducing voter turnout in the past few decades. This has the affect of limiting the diversity and dynamic of ideological viewpoints within a parliament. In Britain, the majority vote for liberal, Tory or labour politicians, whose parties shuffle in and out of power in an almost cyclical manner time and time again.  We all realise this.  It has occurred in Ireland time and time again too.  After decades of this to-ing and fro-ing, portions of the electorate believe it pointless to waste their vote on other, less widely publicised alternatives - if they are even aware that other alternatives exist; disillusionment grows; some think it pointless voting at all; it continues until massive portions of society discover that the "elite" political system does not represent their interests - which it doesn't; society, hopefully reacts in a fight for an alternative or it decays even further.  Surely, a political system which goes through such a mundane and futile cyclical process is evidence that none of those parties, which are continually elected, offer any real solution or change to society's constant problems.

Turnnout at British general elections since 1945

In the US it is even worse.  Although there are many political viewpoints, including socialist and communist ones, only two are represented through the mainstream media.  It is effectively a two-horse-race within one ideological system (not too far removed from the USSR's one-party system).  The political viewpoints which separate either Democrat or Republican presidential candidate is really a matter of splitting hairs.  Arguments have been made after the recent US presidential election that the media helped Obama win, and hindered Mitt Romney.  This is missing the point.  The US mainstream media certainly do decide who wins the election; They do their utmost to ensure that the presidential elections are won by one of either two people that they favour - a Democrat or a Republican.

US Presidential election turnout since 1824.  2012 turnout was 59%

Just like most European governments, the US government has become a tool of management and regulation for a capitalist society where big-business' profit is the overall priority.

Ireland has become such a society over the course of the past century.  We, as a people, are being intentionally distracted and pacified by Government officials acting in the interest of private organisations.  This pacification is achieved through a range of corporate sponsorship of the media and PR agencies acting directly on behalf of the Government.  You don't have to look far to find major academics' analysis of this.  Hence the best we can hope for from said politicians is a regulatory role which minimises the harm of such corporations and investors upon the public - but in a recession, even that does not occur, in fact, the opposite is occurring.

"For the general population... it's been pretty harsh.  And it could get worse.  This could be a period of irreversible decline.  For the 1% and even less - the one-tenth of the 1% - it's just fine.  They are richer than ever, more powerful than ever, controlling the political system, disregarding the public.  And if it can continue, as far as they're concerned, sure, why not?' (Chomsky; 2012; 32)  

Getting back to the media's failure to address political discrepancies.  So, if it is getting worse for the 99% and better for the 1%, why doesn't the media address this and the fact that the four most popular parties in Ireland offer no solution or alternative to this problem of inequality?  Well doing so, would be to encourage revolution - and the media has a vested interest in not encouraging revolution.

The mainstream media is mainly a class of people who have a direct or indirect interest in maintaining the status-quo.  Journalists, presenters and researchers, like anyone else, are ambitious to progress their careers; owners of media corporations would like to increase profits.  Profits are made through advertising - and advertising is driven by programmes which garner larger audiences for the corporations placing their advert there.  To make a programme interesting, the focus is often on drama -whether fictional or otherwise - rather than on relevant, insightful and factual subject matter.  Simply, encouraging revolution, would be encouraging the possible end of corporate controlled media, by the death of advertising, without which most of our largest media organisations would not survive in their current form.  Ultimately, private businesses and the media provide what a state cannot convincingly provide - effective and sophisticated propaganda.

It's not always the case that individuals are actively and consciously conspiring to uphold a political system.  In fact, many are critical of it.  However, due to time constraints, journalists may not have time for a lengthy piece covering the minutiae of political rhetoric and policies.  They do not have time, because space for adverts, and the programmes which drive the audience to them take priority.   But most critical journalists simply act as reformists.  They may encourage public outcries regarding certain issues in order to create political pressure to improve the system slowly and in small increments.  But the economics of the system - which ultimately is the cause of most problems - would remain the same; and the same natural and inevitable problems and injustices would result.  This brings us back to the topic of the blog; that we need to change the system, not just the current Government parties.

Recent opinion polls indicate, (also http://politicalreform.ie/category/opinion-polls/) that Fianna Fáil have gained popularity since their humiliation in the 2011 general election.  They are now the second most popular party in Ireland, behind Fine Gael.  Sinn Féin have also risen in the polls.  We are seeing a repeat of the cyclical process; to what end?

The household tax, which was opposed by 700,000 households in Ireland, was not actively opposed by any of these parties until late in 2012.   So, what is their credibility in the minds of voters?  CAPTA is fought for by ordinary people, regardless of their political affiliation  who early in the campaign, sought support from Sinn Féin, which they did not receive.  Now that the campaign has proven popular, Sinn Féin are ready to jump on the bandwagon.

Fianna Fáil are being prioritised for interviews* as representatives of the opposition to the property tax on RTÉ, ahead of CAPTA members, yet Fianna Fáil were responsible for the conditions which brought the implementation of the household tax, water tax, property tax and other austerity measures about.

Arriving at the main point; Ireland's democracy is certainly not a healthy one.  If you understand that our society needs to improve its democratic process, we need to change the parties who govern the population, but that is not enough.  We need to elect parties who will actually change the system.  We all need to have an active part in this.  CAPTA is a fine example.  It is an example of ordinary people - who until now have been passive - becoming politically aware and active in campaigning to make change to the system.


*A recent example of media bias regarding alternative polical/economic systems:

RTÉ is a state-funded organisation and the most popular television and radio broadcaster in Ireland.  Obviously, this places them in a partial position regarding political coverage.  Recently, regarding CAPTA, RTÉ refused to interview members to a debate with a Fine Gael minister regarding the CAPTA movement.  CAPTA (formerly CAHWT) has been the only credible Campaign Against Property Tax & Austerity.  Ironically RTÉ chose to invite a Fianna Fáil politician as a representative of opposition to the property tax instead - FF were the party who originally approved the introduction of a household tax by the Troika.  

It Is Inappropriate For Religious Groups to Lobby Democratic Governments

I made the seemingly controversial remark recently to journalist Marc Coleman on twitter that it is inappropriate for a religious group to lobby a government in a democracy such as Ireland's.  This was in response to Marc's initial tweet 'Clear message from Labour: it's only acceptable to lobby gov't if you're a trade union looking for taxpayers money, Not if you're catholic'.  Marc Coleman kindly replied to my tweet and made the following argument to which I have been unable to reply until now.

Firstly, as a  former media student and a current media professional (and a bit of a hippy) I fully support freedom of speech and, of course, democracy. These are just two of my values.

Democracy has its paradoxes however.  One for example, is the idea that a majority can democratically elect a completely undemocratic group  to power (as happened most notably with the rise of the Nazi Party) and the ethics of doing so that go along with this (i.e. should an undemocratic government, which was democratically elected,  be overthrown by the minority?).  Another paradox is how Irish democracy (and others) operates under a supposedly highly complex economics system that few understand, or feel they understand, though it directly shapes their lives and votes.

A third paradox is the co-existence of church and state.  Of course freedom of religion is only right. However, it's often argued that the state should remain independent from influence of any church when considering issues.  This is not always possible.  Religious lobby groups exert huge pressure on governments which has a direct influence on their decisions. Examples can be found in the arguments for gay marriage and the right for a persons' choice to choose abortion or contraception.  Here, the Catholic Church, a deeply undemocratic institution, represses the freedoms of the majority who support gay marriage - ironically restricting the freedoms and rights of many gay Catholics in the process.  Their reasons for opposing such issues are based not on any scientific evidence but on dogmatism and their supposed faith. This is the gist of  the principles that my argument with Marc are based on.

I'd like to make my reply by going through each tweet.  I don't usually approach arguing a point based on historical events because of a tendency to become embroiled in arguments orientated around what certain historical figures may or may not have thought at a given time about a given situation - but I'll try my best to respond to the tweets here based on the historical examples.

Marc's first tweet states that the majority of the Irish population are Catholic- according to the most recent Irish census 84% of the Irish population are Catholic and it would be 'undemocratic to deny their views'.  Who could disagree with the second part of that tweet?  Of course it would be undemocratic to deny any individual of their views.  But for a powerful group to lobby a democratic government their views must be based upon some plausible argument for the well being of the society of which they are a part of.

Basing your societal views on your religious background does not make your argument plausible - there should be no respect or credibility given to an argument with such a basis.  Regarding the 84% stating their religion as "Catholic" - this does not reveal the true extent of atheism in Ireland.  Only 35% of the population still attend mass at best.  The census figures are controversial - many atheists stated "catholic" as their religion as they were born into traditionally Catholic families. There were many calls at the time to have this method of collecting information on religious affiliation improved so that it is more accurate.

 Dara O Briain: Atheist, but still "Catholic". 

Marc's second tweet was perhaps unfair; that 'secularization of Germany, Russia and China in the 20th century led to Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism and state tyranny'.  I entirely disagree that it was secularism that led to this tyranny - the suggestion is ridiculous.  Firstly, Nazis were Christian; their belt buckles had the slogan 'Gott Mit Uns' - God With Us.  Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism  may have had many reasons that led them to tyranny, but religion or secularism probably had little or nothing to do with it.  

'The church revived democracy in Poland...'.   True enough, the Catholic church supported the movement for democracy in Poland.  However, it was the Solidarity Trade Union that performed one of most important roles in this movement. Although the church publicly supported the role, it was hardly responsible for the downfall of such an oppressive and authoritative regime.  During this time Poland also received over-whelming support from media and democracies in the west.  Ironically, the church now supports the Putin government in Russia (calling Putin a “miracle from God”)- a point also enthusiastically highlighted by Western media through the Pussy Riot case. In Ireland, the church abandoned great democratic leaders such as O'Connell and Parnell to further their own interests which led directly to the violence of the past century caused by an aggressive form of Irish nationalism based misguidedly on Catholicism.

'Collapse of Atheist France into mass murder...'  The year of terror (1793-1794) in France following the French Revolution was certainly a chaotic time - but not one caused by atheism.  Actually, some of the main factors which caused the appalling situation were that counter-revolutionaries and neighboring enemy states were attempting to overthrow the newly formed republic (this post-revolutionary political chaos also happened in Ireland, Russia, USA, India/Pakistan and other post-revolutionary states).  There was also a vicious power struggle within the republic between different revolutionary sides.  Incidentally, it was this new French Republic that brought about the end of the Catholic Church's tyrannical Spanish Inquisition. 

'Christian faith of American Revolutionaries' vs. 'blood-drenched... of the secular French...'  Of course, most American Revolutionaries were indeed Christian.  However, the US was founded as a secular state from the outset and this can be found in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Also, Thomas Jefferson is credited by some sources of having coined the phrase 'wall of separation bettween church and state'.  Secularism in the US can also be found more recently, such as with JFK who said;

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials...

Marc's last tweet puts the motion, 'If a law is supported by the majority, and also supported by a church then support of that church doesn't invalidate it [the law]'.  I completely agree - once the law is supported and passed by a majority, it must be supported by all (unless the law calls for ethnic cleansing or some other horrific act).  However, the very point at hand can be found within Marc's question.  If the law under discussion is formed without the intervention of a religious lobby group and is supported by a church - all the better.  However, if the law is formed after lobbying from a religious group, then can we be sure that the Government wrote the law indifferently to the interests of any church and with only the well-being of the entire population at mind?

Propaganda in Irish Independent

In the past couple of weeks, there have been particularly prominent examples of propaganda in the Irish Independent.  This is based on two separate stories from the newspaper containing a similar theme about the methods of claiming and spending of salaries and expenses by Irish TD.

The first story centred around the designation of a portion of Sinn Féin TD Pearse Doherty's salary and some expenses to employ previously unemployed Sinn Féin activists to work on behalf of Sinn Féin.  The second story focused on the allocation of half of Fine Gael TD Brendan Griffin's salary to fund a primary school in its attempt to hire a new teacher.  Ironically, the primary school is unable to hire a new teacher and recently had to let go of another teacher because of cuts by the Fine Gael-led Government.

Michael Brennan, Deputy Political Editor of the Irish Independent wrote of their investigation into Sinn Féin's spending:

'An Irish Independent investigation reveals for the first time how Sinn Fein relentlessly and efficiently uses the political funding system to maximum advantage here, in the North, at Westminster and in the US.Our probe also reveals how:
- Sinn Fein officials monitor the bank accounts of each of the party's 14 TD to ensure that they use part of their wages to hire constituency staff.
- Each TD only takes the annual industrial wage after tax -- around €29,000 -- from their €92,000-a-year salary.
The balance, which works out at around €18,000 after tax and pension levies, is used to pay for additional constituency staff.
- Over €250,000 was legally diverted in this way last year alone.
- The cash is given directly to staff, rather than the party, to get around donation limits'

The findings relating to allocation of personal salaries were sandwiched between reports about "How Sinn Fein TDs are breaking the rules on expenses".  It has been found that Doherty has, in fact, not broken any rules regarding spending of expenses.  It is also worth noting that the points the Irish Indpendent highlight in their article related not to his spending of expenses, but to how he spends his own salary.


The above report regarding the allocation of Sinn Féin TD's salaries could be considered a negative report, in that it does not applaud the method of the TD's appropriation of incomes.  


6 days after the above article was published regarding Doherty, Majella O'Sullivan, also of the Irish Independent, wrote the article titled 'TD donates half his pay so school can hire teacher after budget cut'.  It included the reaction of the school principal to Griffin's donation:

'..."It's absolutely fantastic, especially when we were so downhearted after losing the appeal," school principal Angela Prendergast told the Irish Independent.  "Then Brendan came up with this proposal."  Mr Griffin said he was delighted to be in a position to help.  "It's an issue I feel very strongly about and the bottom line is there will be a third teacher in the school next September," he said'.

The above abstract can be considered to be relaying the story in a  positive light. In the article relating to Griffin, there is a stronger emotional or 'humanized' (Herman & Chomsky) element created by the inclusion of the School Principal's opinion.  In this case, the School Principal is the beneficiary.  In the former article, there is no opinion from the point of view of the previously unemployed Sinn Féin campaigners, who would be the beneficiaries in that situation. 

In respect to the first story, the Irish Independent boasts extensive background investigation and analysis displayed within the report; 'An Irish Independent investigation reveals'.  With the article concerning Griffin, there was comparatively no analysis and no background investigation.

This kind of reporting is consistent with Herman and Chomsky's explanation of a propaganda model associated with enemy and friendly states, although in this case, we can substitute enemy and friendly 'states' for Sinn Féin members and Fine Gael members respectively; 'We would... expect great investigatory zeal in the search for enemy villainy... but diminished enterprise in examining such matters in connection with ones own and friendly states'. (Herman & Chomsky, 1988, p. 35)

I conclude that the two stories, although similar in nature, are told with bias, and that the bias, in this case, is in favour of the Fine Gael agenda.


Screenshot references of the online versions of the Irish Independent articles can be viewed below:
__________________________________________________________________________________________

HOW SINN FEIN TDS ARE BREAKING THE RULES ON EXPENSES

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/how-sinn-fein-tds-are-breaking-the-rules-on-expenses-3144781.html

TD donates half his pay so school can hire teacher after budget cut 

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/td-donates-half-his-pay-so-school-can-hire-teacher-after-budget-cut-3150775.html

 

Taken from Joe Higgin's press statement, 3rd July, relating to expenses:

In 2011, apart from the Party Leader’s Allowance, the Fine Gael party received public funding of €1.9 million; Labour 1.03m; Fianna Fail 1.6million; dependent on their first preference vote in the general election. According to the legislation these parties are free to use that public funding for “coordination of the activities and members of the party” i.e. for the organisation and building of their parties. Smaller parties that do not qualify for public funding based on their first preference vote would therefore be at a serious disadvantage.

ULA Must Clarify Their Stance Regarding Mick Wallace

At the time of writing this, the ULA, remain the only members (Irish Times, the Journal) of the Technical Group in Dáil Eireann not to have requested Mick Wallace to stand down after he was found to be liable of un-declared VAT payments of approximately €1.4 million. I feel that this stance is detrimental to the campaigns that the ULA are involved in. 

The prolific debate about Mr. Wallace's future as TD is one with hypocrisy evident on both sides.  Fianna Fáil cannot be completely critical of Mr. Wallace without drawing-up reminders that they were recently one of the most corrupt parties in Ireland.  Fine Gael  are not guiltless in this regard either.

Also, from the perspective of some (journal comments), it may be difficult to understand the press' portrayal of this story as it would appear inconsistent with their portrayal of other similar stories which they report (or don't report) about corruption and alleged corruption in Irish politics.

The press' portrayal of this issue is not without its own apparent bias.  The Irish Independent, Ireland's most popular newspaper, has linked the story of Mick Wallace to the Campaign Against Water and Household Tax (CAWHT) for no obvious reason.  However, one might reasonably conclude the Independent's allusion to CAWHT in this instance might be to further the Irish Independent's own particular interests.  There is no relevance between the CAWHT and the tax dodging of individual Mick Wallace except for the fact that he happened to support that campaign.

That being said, have the press acted inappropriately by highlighting this story to the public?  I believe they have not.  Highlighting this kind of story is precisely the point of having a free media. 

So, we can see then that there are certain inconsistencies in the handling of this story by politicians, and mainstream media coverage may not be completely genuine. But it still remains that the ULA's position of not suggesting Mr. Wallace stand down places them too in a hypocritical position of their own.

The ULA have achieved this by failing to fully clarify their position about a TD who has been useful to their own interests, while simultaneously criticising the Government for not completely denouncing TD's who had also been found to have acted improperly in the past.

The Socialist Party's stated reason for not completely condemning Mr. Wallace was:

'...the Socialist Party has not joined the frenzied chorus in the media demanding Wallace’s immediate resignation.  In taking this position we believe we are reflecting the view of many ordinary people in Wexford and of those who voted for [Mick Wallace], who condemn what he did but who don’t believe it means he shouldn’t be a TD to represent their area... The media are not impartial observers. A substantial part of the media is owned by billionaires and millionaires who have a vested interested in pushing a right wing political agenda. No doubt Wallace provoked their ire when he opposed the bondholder bailout and opposed extra austerity measures such as the home tax and campaigned against the Austerity Treaty in the recent Referendum.' (Socialist Party Website)

By adding their voice to the "chorus" of politicians that have already stated that Wallace should stand down the Socialist Party would not significantly undermine the Wexford electorate any further - if at all.

Conversely, not making such a statement only serves to further highlight the Socialist Party and other ULA members as having some alliance with Mr. Wallace which prevents them from condemning his position outright.  Of course any such alliance is non-existent as Mr. Wallace is not a member of the socialist party and has no affiliation with ULA other than his mutual support of the CAWHT.

As we have seen above, the Socialist Party's position on this matter has more to do with their perception of the media's agenda in this situation.  Their assessment of the media's ulterior aims appears to distract them from the more pertinent issue at hand - that of accepting the continuance of a politician working in the Dáil whose position has been compromised by a serious injustice against the State. 

Blaming the media's coverage of previous events and shrouded agendas is seen as petty in this instance .  As long as the ULA's position regarding Wallace remains irresolute, it actually plays into the hands of anyone who would like to use Wallace as an instrument against the CAWHT or the ULA who have 'absolutely nothing to do with this in any sense whatsoever' (Joe Higgins). 

Worst of all for the ULA is that they are now perceived by some to be just like all the rest.  Fundamentally, public perception is what it boils down to.  Ever critical of Labour's failings to stand up for its convictions, the ULA is in danger of being seen to do the same. 

Ultimately, if the ULA feel they are acting on principle, the outcome of their hesitant actions regarding Mr. Wallace are the same to most people; that is, to some, their principles may just appear like excuses.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE:
Since writing this, Joe Higgins (Leader of Socialist Party) has released a statement about his opinion on the Mick Wallace controversy. 

Crypt Sphinx has also written a response to this blog here.

Musings on what has been and will be.: James and Crypt

Musings on what has been and will be.: James and Crypt: Dispatches from the front lines: Me and James will be discussing various things over the coming weeks , The situation and standing of t...