Editorial: Fine Gael to blame for political inaction

"This election provided an opportunity to win the kind of specific mandate for the radical action that is needed to resolve the national crisis..this has not happened and Fine Gael is primarily to blame.."

The achievement of the February election campaign was to establish a general recognition of the nature and extent of the crisis- prior to then the parties, and Fianna Fall in particular, refused to acknowledge that there was any real problem at all. While the outcome of that election certainly gave a general mandate to deal with the crisis even Fianna Fail came to grapple with it after a few months of hesitancy - this election provided an opportunity to win the kind of specific mandate for desperate and radical action, which is needed to resolve the problem. This has not happened and Fine Gael is primarily to blame.

* unemployment is likely to soar to well over 200,000 in late 1983 or 1984

* the country's public finances are likely to drift further into such disarray as to require sometime in 1984 measures which will cause even higher levels of unemployment, massive company closures, the dismantling of much of our public services etc.

* the prevailing levels of poverty will not alone persist but will spread to well beyond the 23% of the population estimated to be below the poverty line

* meanwhile a massive alienation from the political and social system will spread, especially among the young, with this alienation expressing itself in terms of rising crime and a larger drug problem

* this latter development is likely to be countered by strident demands by the middle class elements of society for a stricter law and order regime, more prisons, more police powers, more repression etc, and this in turn to lead to further alienation

* at the same time the Northern Ireland problem will continue to fester with no faction either there or in the rest of Ireland or in Britain taking any initiative to break the deadlock and thereby lead to an ultimate solution

From the first day of the campaign Fine Gael has refused to offer anything other than vague generalities and banalities on how they would cope with the country's pressing problems. There is a general assurance that tough decisions would get taken, that the poorer sections of the community would be protected, that job creation would form a high priority, that the party is in favour of unspecified moves towards a more pluralist society etc. But there has been a dogged, cynical and bland refusal to seek a specific mandate.

Fine Gael tell us they will cut public expenditure to deal with the problem of the public finances. They refuse absolutely to say what the magnitude of the cuts will be in 1983, what areas the cuts will be made in and what sections of society are going to have to bear the brunt. The issue of public expenditure cuts centres very largely on the health area because of the huge percentage of total expenditure that comes under that heading. In a reckless and ignorant manner, the party's spokesperson on Health, Jim O'Keeffe, said at a press conference in The Shelbourne Hotel, Dublin, on Wednesday, November 17, that Fine Gael would restore the expenditure items cut by Fianna Fail in recent months, would engage in a general "review" of the health expenditure problem and would eliminate waste.

That contribution to the national debate on how to resolve the crisis came after Dr. FitzGerald again and again refused point blank to make any commitment on any specific areas of public expenditure cuts or on taxation increases, claiming that it was not possible to do so as the party did not have sufficient information. O'Keeffe did the usual bit about generic drugs and the bloated bureaucracy of the health boards, but there was no specific commitment to do anything even about these problems, let alone any mention of the massive rip-off of the health budget by the doctors and the vast wastage caused by the failure to rationalise the hospital service.

That contribution and the press conference as a whole was a more cynical ploy in the electoral "game" than anything Fianna Fail did in their now infamous 1977 election manifesto, for at least there was the semblance of an overall strategy there about boosting economic growth - in the Fine Gael case on Thursday, there was just a straightforward greed for power and almost anything that had to be not said and - in the case of O'Keeffe - said, was going to be delivered. This represents a real perversion of the true nature of elections, which are supposeq to be the occasion on which the people as a whole determine their fate - how can they determine their fate if the political parties who monopolise the election process refuse to spell the fate of the people out for them in the light of competing policies.

Fine Gael is about getting back into office. It is not about using the democratic process to win sufficient electoral support for those policies which it believes will solve our problems and lead to a better society. They self-righteously believe that they should be trusted to do "the right thing" when they get back. as though "doing the right thing" were somehow value free, quite apart from the trust bit. There are many of us who wouldn't like "the right thing" that Fine Gael would do (i.e. serve the interests of those bits of the electorate which they judge - through sophisticated marketing exercises - to be necessary to form their political majority). Perhaps even Fine Gael might turn on those bits of the electorate that have come to support it and impose policies that are adverse to them. Either way we should be told. Either way Fine Gael is not telling.

But there is another element to all this - the prospect that Fine Gael will not be able to do "the right thing" because it will not have persuaded public opinion to accept it. While there is a general recognition of the nature and extent of the crisis, there is by no means an acceptance that living standards will have to be cut drastically to deal with the crisis. Neither is there an acceptance that some sections of the community will have to bear the burden of resolving the crisis more than will other sections.

Thus, when hardy comes to hardy - more than likely sometime in the second half of next year when the Government of the day perceives that the measures they have taken in the January 1983 budget have not been adequate to deal with the public finances problem - the Government will simply be immobilised. Even if the cabinet wants to go ahead with the draconian measures that will then be needed, the parliamentary party - and especially Labour if there is a coalition - will just not be able to take the political flak involved. This essentially will be because the groundwork of persuasion will not have been done with the electorate, the mandate will not have been obtained.

It is not only in relation to cutting public expenditure and dealing with the public finances that Fine Gael is behaving cynically. All their protestations about relieving poverty is nothing but hot air in the absence of any specific plans to redistribute wealth and, again, a campaign to persuade people that the sacrifices are necessary to achieve an equitable and just society (perish the phrase).

Garret FitzGerald has gone around the country for some years now telling everybody how committed he is to a United Ireland and to the concept of a genuinely pluralist Ireland. But, again, when hardy comes to hardy, where is he? What is he prepared to do about the constitutional prohibition on divorce? - refer it to a special Oireachtas committee. What is he prepared to do about the contraception law, which he himself has characterised as sectarian? - refer it to a special Oireachtas committee.

And when the ticklish issue of abortion comes up, what does he do? He supports a bigoted, sectarian minority in their attempt to foist a measure on the Irish electorate, which has almost nothing to do with the merits or demerits of abortion itself but entirely to do with their attempt to re-assert their lost domination over this society. It may well be that the terms of the proposed amendment may to the Constitution be unexceptional - that is not the point. The point is that this whole effort has been got up by people who, on the whole, are openly bigoted on other issues, have used pulpits of Catholic churches to espouse their cause and who have exhibited throughout the controversy an intolerance which runs entirely counter to any concept of a pluralist society.

This is the camp that Garret FitzGerald found himself ensconced in. He may argue that had he not gone in there he would have been vulnerable to the ghouls of Fianna Fail - but when did the "crusade" for a pluralist Ireland become subject to a veto from that quarter? It would have taken courage to stand out against the blackmail inherent in the pro-amendment campaign, and without such courage no real cultural change can be brought in Irish society.

All of which leads to the question: but isn't Fianna Fail worse? Yes, Fianna Fail is worse, but the contrast between the two sides is not at all as stark as has been presented in the campaign. Yes, Haughey did fail to take any action in 1980 to deal with the problem which he correctly diagnosed in January of that year; he did cave in through political weakness to the public sector unions; he did fiddle the books in January 1981 and made matters very much worse during the period from January to June of that year in a reckless attempt to stay in power; he did wildly oppose the admittedly courageous July '81 budget, which rescued the country from economic calamity for a year; he couldn't make his mind up on anything, including his frontbench in Opposition; he conducted a reckless campaign for the February election; he launched into boom and bloom until drawn back from that madness by his colleagues after the Dublin West by-election.

And yet, Charlie Haughey was not and is not as bad as they say he is, at least not in relative terms - relative to Garret FitzGerald. Remember FitzGerald spent most of his four years as leader of the Opposition attending, not to the great problems and issues of the day, but in touring the country building up the Fine Gael organisation. It was he who sponsored the wild and reckless election programme of June 1981. It is he who has brought self-righteousness to a new art in Irish politics, with his personal vilifications of Haughey and his sponsorship of wild innuendo against his rival - as for instance the telephone bugging issue. And now his cynical "head down" strategy designed to get back to power at no cost - i.e. no cost in terms of specific commitment to anything.

And remember Haughey does have surer instincts on Northern Ireland - FitzGerald does appreciate the crucial pluralist dimension to the problem but since he refuses to take any stand on an issue that would give his appreciation any meaning it doesn't count for much. And remember Haughey now at last seems about to get his act together.

But Fianna Fail have not faced up to the problems of our country any more than Fine Gael has. True, the enforced publication of their book of estimates for public expenditure for 1983 shows their hand somewhat better than anything does the Fine Gael hand, but in so far as the cuts shown there deal with only £200m of the £500m necessary to deal with the problem in 1983, there is either a renewal of the head in the sand stance perfected by the party during the "boom and bloom" phase or they just don't want to tell us.

What is really unnerving about Fianna Fail, however, is their "Way Forward". In that document there are all the symptoms of decision deferral and pie-in‡ the-sky optimism which are now the hall-marks of Charles Haughey and which are certain to doom the countrv to calamity, if unchecked.

However unfair it may be - and there is a degree to which it is unfair - Charles Haughey is now a symptom of the national malaise and can never be part of the cure. He alone is not responsible for this - an adverse press, disloyal colleagues, corrosive rumour-mongering, snide innuendo from his opponents have all contributed. But Haughey himself is also largely to blame and, in any event, the attachment of blame is no longer relevant. What is relevant is that he has to go, and even those who like him personally, who are nauseated by the vilification and apprehensive at the alternatives, must reluctantly conclude likewise.

But there is no guarantee that the cure will come once Haughey has departed. Fine Gael, and Garret Fitz‡ Gerald in particular, have. gone to great lengths to ensure that our political system is not mobilised to grapple with our daunting national problems. This elec‡ tion campaign has represented a serious set-back for Irish society. Before the opportunity next arises to seek public support for what is necessary to avert the calamity, the calamity may al‡ ready have occurred

One good thing about Fine Gael in this election is the package of proposals for our Parliamentary and civil service institutions. The effect of these proposals, if implemented, would be to greatly improve accountability. They would make elections into more meaningful exercises, by forcing politicians to come "up front" with their proposals and policies. But through whatever means are necessary, the media must resolve never to allow this to happen again. Neither to allow the calculated infliction of bordeom to deter them from exposing the con job on the electorate which this election has represented, courtesy of Fine Gael.