Higgins can’t be given free run to second term
TOSTAYortogoisa quandary that has rested on many political shoulders through the ages.
It’s the dilemma that now faces our President, Michael D Higgins, as he plays an ever-sopolished game of political chicken with the electoral establishment.
His comments this week may have been intended to placate public interest, but they have effectively started the race, scheduled for October.
If that election takes place, Higgins will be only the second president to contest an election since Éamon de Valera’s narrow victory over Tom O’Higgins in 1966.
At the time of the contest, de Valera was 83 and agreed to seek a second term as President at the behest of Fianna Fáil. The older man was opposed by Fine Gael, who ran O’Higgins, one of their younger TDs.
In an almost cataclysmic upset, O’Higgins came within 1pc of defeating the man who had been the most prominent force behind the Republic since 1932. De Valera blamed his narrow win on the campaign and in particular his campaign manager Charles Haughey.
Whilst O’Higgins’s political experience may have been inferior to that of his opponent, his youthful enthusiasm throughout the campaign only served to highlight the failings of the older man.
Perhaps even more extraordinary was the election took place in the immediate aftermath of the official ceremonies that marked the 50th anniversary of the 1916 Rising.
Official formalities saw an estimated 200,000 spectators gathered in Dublin’s city centre and de Valera standing in front of the GPO with 900 Rising veterans on his left and right.
In 1966, some 55pc of Irish households had a television and Teilifís Éireann beamed those ceremonies across Ireland.
Commemorations had a visible impact on the fabric of the city and the country, with monuments erected, and bus and rail stations named and renamed after leaders. And yet even against that backdrop de Valera – the last surviving commandant of the Rising – almost lost a presidential election a few short months later.
Fianna Fáil pitched de Valera above politics, choosing not to campaign in the traditional manner and limiting his appearances.
His age may have dictated the strategy, but it was fundamentally flawed from the outset.
Essentially, it allowed a young, articulate and agile candidate to project a dynamism de Valera had lost.
It illustrates the point that absolutely nothing can be taken for granted and Higgins has been around long enough to know that.
Presidential campaigns are ruthless, divisive and desperately unpredictable. In the vexed vortex of political contests, they are without doubt the most personally taxing for everyone involved.
Potential candidates should approach these crusades with the same zeal as someone rushing toward a burning building. Best avoided at all costs.
There are no party colleagues to shield behind, no policy papers to placate the insatiable appetite of the modern media and everything is turned inward toward the individual.
Campaigning is ugly and sometimes very personal.
The current incumbent still has reason to hope such a gruelling contest may yet prove unnecessary. Many of his predecessors have been allowed a second term unopposed.
Alas, the luxurious option of avoiding an election and contest is beyond his control.
The two large political parties have yet to show their hands, but there remains the outside possibility of a consensual approach to adopting some cross-party support for Higgins.
Given his level of popularity and his success in the role to date, that cannot be discounted.
This aside, if forced into an election, Higgins and his team may opt for a low-key, low-presence campaign similar to de Valera; choosing a campaign which allows President Higgins’s legacy, his record and his public satisfaction rating to speak for itself.
The manoeuvre may have worked to get someone over the line in 1966, but as a tactic now it would be a huge gamble. It does not deal with the reality of campaigning in the modern era.
Accessibility and visibility have become a huge part of modern campaigns. Even with the sparsest of electioneering a candidate cannot avoid things like televised leaders’ debates and public appearances.
Multiple opinion polls have repeatedly stated that Irish people want Higgins to stay on as president for a second term.
During the course of the 2011 presidential campaign, he stated repeatedly he would only serve for a single seven-year term.
Since then he has discovered he can do the job well and he wants to do it some more. Good for him.
Seven years in Áras An Uachtaráin has not produced an itch to leave. And why would it?
Michael D Higgins has been a remarkable revelation as President of Ireland during some of the most socially divisive times this country has witnessed.
HE has proved both unifying and challenging on important social issues and has represented the country remarkably well at home and abroad. There is no question he could continue to do his job admirably and ambitiously.
However, a coronation without a contest would rob us of the opportunity to see what Ireland looks like today through the prism of a presidential debate.
For all their faults, these campaigns are uniquely unburdened by the haggling over taxation and political policies.
Presidential campaigns are more about who we are as a society than any other political contest.
A campaign this year would afford Ireland a very different debate now, compared to the one that took place in 2011; a time when the country was on its knees economically and socially and our political system was in turmoil.
In recent decades, the role of president has been changed fundamentally and forever by people such as Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese.
They changed the image of the Áras from a retirement home for politicians to an office that affected real and substantial social progress.
The campaigns they took part in were an important part of creating their narratives and their legacy. Who doesn’t remember McAleese’s ‘Bridge Building’ or Robinson’s ‘Candle In The Window’.
Even the type of candidates who have run in campaigns have changed radically, broadening the field beyond politics.
Social campaigners like Adi Roche and civic leaders like Mary Davis have admirably put themselves before the Irish people.
This is something that would have been unthinkable in de Valera’s time. Business people like Sean Gallagher, or the late Martin McGuinness from Derry, reflected a broader landscape with wider views beyond the narrow confines of our closed political system.
Whilst such candidates may have been unsuccessful, their inclusion in the race was really important.
It demonstrated Irish society is constructed by many more interests than the mainstream political parties. Who is to say the next contest would not push the boundaries even further and see candidates from even more diverse areas of Irish society?
Our presidency should not be about closing a chapter for one person, but about starting a new chapter for everyone.