Questions like 'what is the difference between right and left-wing?', or 'what side are we on - the left or the right?' are ones which have come up often at meetings and events I have attended recently. Sadly the prevailing knowledge on forums and other Internet sites also tend to be very ill-informed about the left-right political spectrum.
Here, a broad description of differences between 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' politics is presented. This political spectrum can be bleary. It can be quite a technical topic also - there is no black and white answer - however, an attempt is made below to give a basic explanation of the differences, which are not always polarised.
Left to right-wing is just one version of a political spectrum. The concept of left-wing and right-wing originated in France during the French Revolution in 1789. Members of the National Assembly would be divided into two groups; supporters of the king - who sat on the right; and supporters of the revolution - who sat on the left. In France, the left may be referred to as 'the party of movement', and the right as 'the party of order'. This remains true now, in a very broad sense.
Generally, left-wing parties, individuals and groups tend to be progressives, greens, liberals (in the social/cultural sense), democratic-socialists, communists or include some forms of anarchist groups also. The right-wing often describes the outlooks of reactionaries or conservatives, neo-conservatives, neo-liberals (in an economic sense), monarchists, theocrats, nazis, fascists and some forms of nationalism. Above, you can see a diagram of the left-right divide within the European Parliament seating arrangements.
Left-wing parties are generally interested in social justice and reforms. Right wing parties are generally concerned with order, maintaining privilege, protecting private property and defending capitalism.
In economics, the right-wing outlook tends to favour the top-down approach. This is the belief that wealthy entrepreneurs, employers, corporations, etc. (in other words, the privileged few of wealth and ownership of production in capitalist societies) will create employment and wealth for the working-class who are dependent on them doing so for employment and well-being. This is often referred to as the 'trickle-down' effect; the wealth is eventually passed down as the value and productivity of profit-seeking organisations goes up (See Margaret Thatcher's remarks on this) Groups on the right may also see themselves as responsible for maintaining order, and traditionally rely on harsh laws and policing to combat crime. Prioritising nationalism, religion, imperialism, individualism and competition are usually of the right.
Left-wing views tends to disagree with the 'trickle-down' approach. Marxists have shown, for example, that wealth is created by the working class who are exploited for the benefit of capitalist employers. That wealth is turned to profit, which is not returned back into the economy through taxes for the benefit of all, but is either "sat on" cautiously in times of recession, or gambled on markets in a speculative manner. The left would generally support higher taxes on the wealthy, reforming capitalism, or eradicating the capitalist system through popular revolution. The left tends to be more concerned with progressive social justice than harsher laws as a method of reducing crime. Internationalism, secularism, equality, solidarity and cooperation are mainly priorities of the left.
The left/right explanation for political theory is in no way an accurate definition of political theory. There is no point in becoming pedantic about it. For example some anarchists may be right-wing. Stalin, it can be shown, exemplified extreme right-wing actions at times, though many would describe him as 'communist' which would be of the left. Nationalist parties in Ireland, such as Sinn Féin, are sometimes regarded as being relatively left-wing economically, but relatively right-wing socially.
As a socialist, I do not believe the right-wing approach to economics is a fair and efficient method. Wealth is not distributed fairly to workers without massive struggle - if even then. There is an abundance of waste of talent, resources, capital, and so on. Of course, Margaret Thatcher's economic policies were disastrous, which brought about the destruction of the working-class while she was in power (seeChavs, Jones, 2011), and have inevitably lead to the current crisis today. It is possible that totalitarianism, bureaucracy and authoritarianism can arise from groups throughout the political spectrum - Mussolini, Napoleon and Stalin would have gained power from the struggle for implementation of ideas from completely different sections. Hence the importance of maintaining democracy, and the principles of Republicanism such as 'Civic Virtue' and 'Non-Domination'. A republic, although a vague concept, can be thought of as a framework for managing society, in a civilised way. In my opinion, capitalism is incompatible with the definition of a republic, because of the inherent need of groups and individuals to dominate others, and because of a governments' general inability to stop this from happening. In a republic, it is the role of the government to block domination, whether it is from a group, individual or the state, and to protect its citizens who give the government legitimacy. (See Up The Republic!, O'Toole, 2012)
Brian Mooney's article about the teachers' conference would have us believe that a 'small minority' of those in attendance hindered the chance of making progress on other 'educational issues' by heckling the minister for education on the 'day he celebrated his birthday'. His argument is cretinous, but may nonetheless be influential among the Irish Times readership in creating a misplaced sympathy for the royal in attendance.
His article is an example of class divide; those whom are cushioned from the crisis show no empathy towards those who are.
For teachers, other issues - as important as they are too - have finally
been out-weighed by their struggle to simply get by on salaries such as theirs. The item of pay must be prioritized by them in this case, as it would be simply impossible for them to focus on other obstacles facing their profession without it. This is the main point, and one which has been missed or
ignored by Mooney, the assistant principle of an all boys Catholic
school in privileged Blackrock.
Mooney's claim that a 'small minority' acted in such a way is contradictory to the RTE report in which we can see a vast number of people hold up red cards towards the minister. We can plainly see the significant displeasure among the attendees, justifiably conveyed to the minister in this way. Teachers are simply sick of talk and negotiations which have moved them to the point which they are currently at - nowhere.
His description of the nature of the conference also seems contrary to reports that 'delegates overwhelmingly agreed to oppose the contentious property tax', because they believe, rightly, that this tax, along with proposed income cuts, are the greatest obstacles. 'The proposals would see teachers working extra hours, losing allowances,
including supervision and substitution payments, and experiencing pay
cuts in higher grades.' 'The TUI is the first union to return a ballot result on the proposed
public service agreement, as 86% of members overwhelmingly (my emphasis) rejected it'. Mooney describes the struggle against these austerity measures by TUI members as 'antics'.
Mooney considers the IMF-EU deal to be irrelevant to the cause of the teachers, and that they should focus on their own narrow interests. 'Voting No simply to let the Government know the level of our frustration
at the effects of the EU-IMF is not a luxury we can afford...'. This argument is almost too stupid for me to counter here! Most of us realise the inseparable link between the IMF-EU, austerity, the property tax and cuts to pay etc. His only purpose of this argument is to bring about a fear among TUI members of having too much to lose. They should, by his reckoning, toe-the-line. But what have teachers left to lose?
You can read Brian Mooney's article for the Irish Times here, and I have also included a copy of the text below.
The education conferences are over for another year, and the opportunity that Easter week offers to teachers through their trade unions to communicate their key messages has again been squandered. From a Government perspective the events of the past week have been a huge public relations success. None of the problems now arising in our schools and colleges from the cutbacks imposed in the past four years, which should be causing the Government acute political difficulties, made any impression on the public consciousness this week.
This was because of the unruly conduct of a small minority of conference delegates. For the casual observer going about their day-to-day business, the only aspect of the conferences which hit home strongly was this behaviour by teachers, holding up red cards to Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn, while others heckled him constantly as he delivered his address. The fact that the Minister was treated in this manner on the day he celebrated his birthday, while he attended the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation and the Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland conferences at their invitation, magnified the public relations disaster this week became for the entire education sector.
All of us have an innate sense of how we expect an invited Minister to be treated, even if you fundamentally disagree with how he is formulating and implementing policy. The most common public reaction to this behaviour which I encountered this week was the question of how those same teachers would feel if their own students behaved in that manner, when they return to their classrooms on Monday morning?
While the public were distracted by these antics there were really important debates taking place at all three conferences during the week, on a wide range of educational issues, which teachers really wanted the public to engage with. As indicated in theMillward Brown survey published by the ASTI on Wednesday, 98 per cent of second-level schools have lost an average of two full-time subject teachers since the onset of the education cutbacks.
Many schools have also lost specialist teachers (such as resource teachers, home school liaison teachers etc.). Forty per cent of schools have lost learning support/ resource teaching hours, while 37 per cent have lost English-language support teaching hours. Thirty-eight per cent of schools said they had dropped at least one subject at Leaving Certificate level as a result of losing subject teachers.
Huge pressures
As the guidance counsellor in Oatlands College myself, I am acutely conscious of the huge pressures which have built up in schools as a result of the cutbacks imposed since 2008. As reported by Louise Holden in The Irish Times yesterday Ciara Kinsella, a teacher of Irish and history at St Raphael’s secondary school in Stillorgan, stated at the Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland conference: “This year is the worst I’ve ever seen. It’s not your typical adolescent stuff. Their parents have lost jobs and in some cases the girls have had no breakfast. They’re hungry.”
Career guidance services in the school were stretched very thin and the school counsellor was “shattered and exhausted”, she said. In her Irish class, she had 35 students and not enough chairs. “I find myself hoping that students will be absent.”
The effects on the lives of our children of the cumulative effect of all the cubacks in our education system imposed in recent years, including the abolition of dedicated hours for the provision of guidance counselling and the resultant loss of one-to-one counselling in 70 per cent of schools, as indicated in the Millward Brown survey, was totally overshadowed by the public reaction to the unruly behaviour of a small minority of teachers, expressing their anger at the ongoing cuts to their salaries, and to the resources invested in our schools.
Efforts by ASTI general secretary Pat King to rescue the situation through his statement publicly condemning the behaviour of the teachers who engaged in those actions, and the more disciplined approach of the Teachers’ Union of Ireland delegates on Wednesday, did little to repair the damage caused by Tuesday’s events.
What happens now? It is clear that there is huge anger among teachers at the effects of the cutbacks on the quality of education which can now be delivered in our schools as well as over how the cutbacks in salaries have impacted on their personal lives. I am still not certain that this anger will translate into a No vote on Croke Park II within theINTO, although the mood at its conference this week would indicate that anger may yet override all other considerations.
Crucial vote
What is clear is that the INTO vote is crucial as to whether the proposed Croke Park agreement will secure a majority at the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (Ictu). On the ground, most teachers earning less than €65,000 realise that the loss of substitution and supervision, which after tax is worth about €600 per year, is a far better deal than the across-the-board cut of 7 per cent which the Government has indicated it will impose, if the proposed package of measures is rejected.
Having said that, the TUI seems to be determined to possibly break with Ictu and consider strike action if the proposals are accepted by a majority at congress. The ASTI went down that route some years back and deeply regretted it. Nobody within the teacher unions or the wider public service is coming forward with proposals as to how far they are prepared to go to defy the Government’s determination to cut the public service pay bill by a further €1 billion over the next three years.
Calls from the chairwoman of Impact’s education division, Gina O’Brien, who represents 10,000 lower-paid staff working as special needs assistants and school secretaries, on teachers to support the proposals, may yet be heard at school level, as members fill in their ballot papers on Croke Park over the coming week. The voices of recently recruited teachers who will have their increments restored under the proposals may also sway some of their colleagues to support the deal.
Whatever happens, teachers need to remember that anger is not a policy. Voting No simply to let the Government know the level of our frustration at the effects of the EU-IMF is not a luxury we can afford, unless we can see a clear pathway of actions following such a vote.
Brian Mooney is a guidance counsellor and a member of the ASTI
Bias Within the Mass Media's Portrayal of Madeleine McCann and Shannon Matthews Cases.
The
tragic case of Madeleine McCann going missing, was an example of how
the child of wealthy parents is prioritized over the lives of ordinary
children by the media in the UK (and Ireland, as it absorbed coverage here too). Studies and comparisons of these cases are ubiquitous across the Internet and bookshelves, so I'll just summarize the two here as an example. The Madeleine McCann
story dominated the papers and television news for weeks, while other
important stories were ignored or received little coverage. In the UK, a
child goes missing every three minutes. On the missing kids.co.uk
website, there are currently 8 children missing since the beginning of February
this year, yet none of these children received anything like the kind of
blanket coverage that the McCann family did. A massive reward of £2.5 million was offered for help in finding Madeleine.
Regarding
the Shannon Matthews case in Britain, an initial reward of £20,000 was raised to £50,000 for help in finding the young girl - still 50 times less than that which was on offer for Madeleine. The media largely ignored the good work
done by the local community in attempts to find the child. Instead the
media tarred all in Shannon's community with one brush as 'professional scroungers', an
'underclass' or, as Melanie Phillips stated;
'the affair has helped to
"reveal the existence of an underclass which is a world apart from the
lives that most of us lead and the attitudes and social conventions that
most of us take for granted... whole communities where committed
fathers are so rare that any child who actually has one risks being
bullied... and where boys impregnate two, three, four girls with
scarcely a second thought'.
The true reality of the
community where Shannon Matthews is from, is that it's a location where
'90% of people work'. Many locals helped in the search for Shannon,
and took money from their own pockets to help with finding her. But
these facts were largely ignored.
TheLaughter Wall, a symbol of community spirit, is demolished in Inchicore Dublin
'Chav' originates from the Romany word for child - 'chavi'.
Working-class people have been de-humanized by the media, and political elite. Our vocabulary for describing the working class has been changed to 'skanger', 'chav' or 'underclass'. Demonizing working class people has become a culture of attacking and 'blaming the victims' through mainstream media. The press has spread the idea that 'people are poor because they lack moral fibre'. In Britain, Chav-hate is a way of justifying an unequal society and this prejudice against the working class has grown in Ireland also, during the past two decades.
The Daily Mail uses the Philpott case in
Britain as a pathetic attempt to, once again, smear the working class.
According to them, the entirety of people unemployed or working-class in
Britain are out to abuse the system in the most horrific of
ways, including killing 6 of their own children - if they must. It's ironic that the
right-wing press emphasises that we should all act individually as an
atomized society, but when something like this happens in a poor area,
they use it as an opportunity to tar an entire class with one brush as monstrous welfare-scroungers.
In the eyes of post-Thatcher Britain, and post-Celtic Tiger Ireland, the working class is often no longer perceived to exist. We are told, that we should aspire to become at least middle-class. We live in what is believed to be a 'meritocracy' of 'social mobility' where people achieve their aspirations through sheer hard work and determination; the mentality goes, if you work hard enough you will surely get anything you desire. Those who don't rise up the social order, surely deserve what they get too, because these people are seen as scroungers, lay-abouts or an untalented, undeserving, underclass. In other words, chavs. In fact, in a recent study in the UK, they even have a new sociological term, the 'precariat' a new social level which British people can 'despise' - an effort to further marginalise the concept and definition of working-class.
'British people can now aspire to and despise four new levels of social
classes, according to a new survey conducted by researchers in
partnership with public broadcaster the BBC.'
But it is a myth, that those on the top of society got there by absolute hard work, talent and determination, while those on the bottom remain there because of laziness or lack of ambition. The capitalist system is rigged in favour of the privileged. Even if everyone attempted to rise up the social order to become middle-class, it would be impossible; 'who would man the supermarket checkouts, and answer the phones in call centres?'. If the mines are an iconic image of working class Britain during the 20th century, call-centres and supermarkets are the working-class occupations of Ireland during the 21st century. The undoubtedly harsh conditions, of generally meaningful, skilled and proud industrial positions have been replaced by monotonous retail and commercial services positions with less union representation, more mental strain and less job security for working-class people. All of this labour is not in the provision of services benefiting the public at large, but to increase profits for shareholders and owners of those private companies.
There is a motto, 'Rise with your class, not above it'. Nowadays, you might be seen as lazy, unambitious or naive if this was a principle you were to stand by. In fact, class is not something which is generally recognised anymore. It has been Barack Obama's and Tony Blair's ideal to create a middle-class majority in the wake of Thatcherism and Reagan administrations. 'It is our generation's task, then, to reignite the true engine of America's economic growth - a rising, thriving middle class' (Barack Obama, State of the Union speech, 2013).Fianna Fáil and their partners in Government during the 90's fed the illusion among Irish people that 'we are all middle-class now', and we should continue to 'party' away as the boom economy rampaged on. Undoubtedly, more people in Ireland were employed during the boom, but only a privileged few were 'partying'.
During this time, instead of improving the conditions and economic circumstances of the working-class as a whole, a sense of selfish individualism was promoted. The concept of working-class communities, cultures and identity was dismantled, ignored and destroyed - at least the realistic conceptions of them were. (See Up The Republic, 2012)
Ironically, the so-called middle-class which is mis-represented by the media, is in reality an elite class which earns more than 47,000 euro per year. The media grossly mis-conceives what the middle-class actually is. In reality, the median wage is approximately 24,500 euro. That is the true median, and that wage represents a working-class wage. The idea that most of us are middle-class is a fallacy. The definition of working-class is '...that class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of
production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to
live' - by far the greater part of the population of Ireland.
This deliberate mis-representation of the size of the middle-class has an important purpose. It does a lot to inspire people to be ambitious above their conditions. It is useful propaganda for promoting and justifying an unequal free-market system, which claims to promote freedom, but is actually rigged to the advantage of those born into privilege. It inherently oppresses and penalizes those who are less fortunate.
'what really made me twitch was when he described himself as a "class
mongrel" (working class with media-middle-class bolted-on). In truth,
Bragg is no class mongrel – that's just how he's been suckered into
feeling'.
This statement is absolutely true. Bragg's warped perception of class is as a result of corporate media's propaganda and free-market ideology that anyone can escape the poor conditions of the working-class and become successful, no matter how tall the odds are stacked against you. We can speculate on why Bragg might define himself in this way; Perhaps Bragg promotes his working-class roots because of the rose-tinted sentimental value they hold and because part of the consumer market for his work lies within the working-class, and he brags his middle-class image to get ahead socially.
Much of the demonization of the working class has resulted from Thatcher's defeat over the trade unions in the 1980's and her government's dismantling of traditional industry jobs such as mining. The town's most affected with unemployment and poverty were the very towns which lost their industry jobs without having them replaced by anything better. These towns now display many of the symptoms, such as high crime rates and drug abuse, which impoverished areas tend to have.
Again, these social issues, paradoxically caused by the destruction of working-class industries by Thatcher's government, added fuel to the fire of the media's demonization of poorer areas. When New Labour were finally elected in 1997, the Left was demoralized in Britain. Blair's government had largely bought into Thatcher's declaration that 'There Is No Alternative!'. The collapse of so-called communism in 1989 did not help either. Socialist economic ideals were seen as unfeasible. When Margaret Thatcher was asked what she felt her greatest achievement was, she answered, 'Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds'. During the late nineties, New Labour, in desperation to re-gain power from the Tories, almost completely abandoned the concept of class struggle (See The Blair Years, 2008).
Ireland shares many cultural attributes as the British public do, not least because British media has significant penetration among Irish audiences, and because Britain is Ireland's most significant trading partner. Most people have access to Sky News and British tabloids. Many of the most popular Irish tabloids (including The Sun, The Daily Mail and the Irish Daily Star) are British, with a few relative Irish stories thrown in to the mix so as to appear more appealing to the Irish market. So the negative sense of the working-class has no doubt been influenced by British media in the Republic.
However, the Republic has it's own important reasons to have shunned and dehumanized its working class. The idea of a working class in Ireland, did not fit the narrative of a modern, upwardly mobile Ireland which was being told during the nineties and noughties. Ireland sought to attract foreign corporations who provide employment for a slim percentage of the overall population - an educated middle-class. Such corporations require an educated workforce with soft-skills required for the service based sector. The image of a strong working-class based industry sector is incompatible with that. The story was that these corporations are good for the economy, yet giants like Google, Starbucks and others pay virtually nothing in tax. Those aforementioned corporations actually pay a rate less than 1%.
Discrediting the working class in Ireland, allows working class communities to face significant cuts to services and benefits, and to be taxed to the hilt in order to pay off "more deserving" speculators, banks and 'entrepreneurs' who caused the current recession.
In my next few blogs, I will focus on some examples and case studies of demonization of the working-class by corporate media and the political elite including:
Jade Goody and Big Brother, the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the portrayal of the working class as an 'enlightened' bunch post WWII and more recently as scroungers, and how rock and roll has become increasingly middle-class and pretentious...
A movement has been ongoing in Ireland during the past year. This started with the Campaign Against Household & Water Taxes (CAHWT) and has evolved to become the Campaign Against Property Tax & Austerity (CAPTA). CAPTA has come about as a result of many hundreds of thousands of households (approx 700,000) refusing to pay taxes which are being used to bailout corrupted banks, financial speculators and unsecured bondholders - who have been largely responsible for the economic crisis in Ireland.
The household tax, and now the property tax (which is more accurately a tax on people's homes) are yet more burdens placed on the ordinary people of Ireland who have already contributed to a universal social charge (USC) which is taken directly from every person's income, as well as continuing cuts to public services, increases in other taxes such as motor tax, and a high cost of living and increased VAT rate (which Irish is the sixth highest in the EU at 23% - up from 21% in recent years). On top of all this is an environment of high unemployment - currently at 14.8% (2012) - it's highest since 2007 when the global recession started. This unemployment rate represents over 324,000 people, a figure which would be even higher if Ireland was not witnessing mass emigration of approximately 200 people per day.
Last year, news of the implementation of a household tax upon Irish families was announced. The household tax would be a flat rate of €100 per house, with an additional monetary fine if you refused or otherwise did not register. This household tax was defeated as a result of a mass boycott by the CAHWT movement (slightly more than 50% of households refused to pay, even after threats of fines and court proceedings) and became obsolete in January 2013. However, the household tax was replaced by a so-called 'property tax' on people's homes. The property tax is equal to 0.18% of most peoples' house value, or €400 on average per year. It should be noted that the property tax does not affect business properties, but just homes and is therefore, in effect, a home tax.
CAPTA is calling for the boycott of the property tax and a mass active movement to protest it. In West Dublin, one of the largest populated areas in Ireland, support for CAPTA is a significant majority. Indeed, it is in this area where the campaign has been largely initiated by left-wing activists such as Joe Higgins TD, Cllr. Ruth Coppinger and Cllr. Matt Waine as well as ordinary people dedicating their free time to the cause.
Revenue will have the ability to eventually procure the property tax from home owners, but this process should be made as difficult as possible for the revenue commissioners to do so by refusing to respond to their requests for information on your home and ultimately registration for the tax. However, a boycott alone will not be enough. There has already begun, a massive campaign of activism against this tax through occupations, marches and other initiatives to place huge pressure; in particular, pressure on the Labour party, which is the weakest link in the current Government. The Fine Gael & Labour coalition is a large coalition with the ability to rush through any legislation without much opposition in the Dáil, although it is a fundamentally weak coalition due to the opposing ideologies of 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.
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?
