Fragments 2006-11-16

According to a recent newspaper report, the main parties are planning on spending in excess of €20m in the upcoming election campaign. Most of this is to come from private donations.

After all the revelations concerning the insidiousness of private finance in the political system, how is it there is no protest about what is now to occur? The political system is about to be bent (again) by the influx of private funds. This will result in the system being focused on the interests of those who can contribute funds, whether because parties see this as the necessary price to pay for largess or because largess supports the parties that will favour it.

All private funding should be banned, including the expenditure of the personal funds of candidates. All candidates should be funded equally by the state (with a requirement that to become a candidate, a person would have to have the support of, say, a thousand voters in their constituency) and all parties should be funded on the basis of the number of candidates they put forward. It is a small price to pay for a fair democracy.

On this day: 20 November 1945

Nuremberg trials

The first and best known of the Nuremberg trials was the Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal. It began on 20 November 1945 at the Nuremberg Palace of Justice. The trial continued until 10 October 1949, trying 24 of the most important captured leaders of Nazi Germany.

The three major wartime powers – the USA, USSR and the UK – agreed on the format to punish those responsible for war crimes during the second world war. France was also awarded a place on the tribunal. Each of the four countries provided one judge and an alternate, and the prosecutors. Some 200 German war crimes defendants were tried at Nuremberg. The trials initiated a movement for the establishment of a permanent international criminal court, eventually leading to the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Emma Somers

Pointless polls

The Irish Times, the Irish Independent, the Sunday Independent, the Sunday Tribune, the Sunday Business Post and Raidió na Gaeltachta will invest well over ?300,000 between them in opinion polls between now and the election. The polls will tell us very little we don't know, but will dominate much of the debate. They will also be roundly misrepresented by the papers that spend so much on funding them.

Variations of three per cent either way for all the main parties are of no consequence in the measurement of public opinion. This is because the polls don't pretend to be accurate to a margin within three per cent either way. Therefore, saying Fianna Fáil is up two points, Fine Gael down two, Labour up one, PDs down one, Sinn Féin up two, is of no significance whatsoever.

Indeed, any commentary on the PDs' showing is almost irrelevant because its base is so small and the polls are not sufficiently large to capture variations in its support. The same goes for the Greens and maybe Sinn Féin.

And since most polls show variances of three per cent or less, they are hardly of any use.

The recent polls showing a boost in Fianna Fáil support of five per cent or more are of significance, and suggest Fianna Fáil will do better than has been predicted.

But shouldn't the debate be about the kind of society we want and who proposes what to shape that society?

RTÉ: the unconscious arbiter

RTÉ plays a crucial role in election campaigns, in defining the issues and in the allocation of time to competing parties and candidates. It is from RTÉ that the vast majority of voters get their sense of what is important and who is important. To a significant extent, RTÉ is the arbiter of democracy (or for what passes for democracy) in Ireland because of its hugely dominant role arising from its monopoly position for so long in Irish broadcasting (and yes, it was a monopoly).

But there is apparently no sense, or little sense, in RTÉ of its role of arbiter. Therefore there is no awareness of the sensitivity of its role and critically, no sensitivity to the agendas it brings to the coverage. As far as RTÉ officially is concerned, it has no agenda and that is the genuine conviction of many of its managers and editors, which is part of the problem.

There is no such thing as no agenda. We all bring agendas to the discussion and analysis of public issues, whether we are conscious of them or not. Neither is there such a phenomenon as "common sense" that can be of assistance, since common sense is itself loaded with agendas, with assumptions on what is fair, what is reasonable.

For instance, from RTÉ's perspective it makes common sense to have regard to the strength of parties in the outgoing Dáil in the balancing of its representation on its programmes. But why is that common sense? Why does it make common sense to bias coverage in favour of the status quo?

And what is the common sense in accepting the prevailing assumptions on what is fair in our society? Why does it make common sense that some people are worth billions and others worth nothing financially? Why are some crimes made a big deal of and other, sometimes more grievous crimes, made nothing of or not referred to at all?

Of course, there are disagreements about such issues but the absence of debate or dissent ensures RTÉ sleepwalks into another election unaware and/or unheeding of the role it plays.

The hunting of Brian Curtin: a wanton waste

It was obvious from the outset of the Brian Curtin affair, once charges against him in connection with child pornography had been dismissed, that an impeachment procedure would drag on interminably, at considerable cost, and would ultimately lead to nothing. And that is precisely what has happened.

It could all have been avoided had Michael McDowell been prepared to do a deal with Brian Curtin, whereby, in return for a reduced pension, he (Curtin) would retire from the bench. But this was (another) matter of principle for McDowell. And for McDowell's "principled" stand the state is out probably by another few million euros and hundreds of hours of Oireachtas time have been wasted.

The money involved could probably have gone a long way to funding the coming election.

A vivid, measured insight into Iraq

RTÉ's Richard Downes has written one of the best books to come out of the coverage of Iraq. A beautifully-written personal memoir woven around the lives of people he met there while reporting first for the BBC and then for RTÉ. There was his driver in Baghdad, Abu Aseel; a translator who happened to be a Christian and an associate of one of the directors of the famed museum in Baghdad; a Sunni who turned out to be a Joycean scholar; a Marsh Arab; a Brit; and a yank.

His reportage from Baghdad for RTÉ at the time of the invasion and immediately afterward was a model of measured, balanced, fair, vivid reporting. He brings these qualities to the book and also a startling writing capacity – also measured, diffident and vivid.