‘One member, one vote’ sounds democratic – but it’s what gave UK Corbyn and Truss
Irreverent. Irrepressible. In the corridors of power
SATURDAY, May 20, 2017. There are fun days in this job but, inevitably, they are caused by the blind panic of a politician and his or supporters. The misplaced enjoyment never involves the physical injury of a politician or anybody else. It is wholly derived from observing the craven depths to which they will descend to save their position. As the circumstances plummet, so do the political ethics. Just such a day was this May morning.
It began early. Social protection minister Leo Varadkar hadn’t even officially launched his campaign to become leader but, unofficially, he’d been running with clinical efficiency for a decade. Online trackers, WhatsApp groups and the traditional media had him miles ahead of the minister for housing, Simon Coveney. It was not Coveney who was panicking that morning, however, as he had probably become resigned a few days early to losing.
History showed that a general who knew the war was lost must continue to fight, hold land and troops, and give his side a strong position in peace negotiations. Coveney surely knew that in a two-horse race he just had to stay in, win some votes somewhere and get a promotion.
Yet there were many others – including Simon Harris, Hildegarde Naughton, Damien English, Kate O’Connell – who had publicly backed Coveney. And there were hundreds of Fine Gael members behind him too. None of these was guaranteed munificence from the incoming leader. As it became clear that the third heavyweight of the Cabinet, Paschal Donohoe, was going to appear alongside Leo Varadkar at the campaign launch later that Saturday, febrile scenes broke out all over.
This newspaper’s front-page headline the following day was ‘Quit Simon! (And that’s the message from his own team).’ We wrote: ‘Simon Coveney’s campaign team descended into chaos last night as the housing minister rejected pleas from at least three senior colleagues to accept reality and withdraw from the Fine Gael leadership battle.’
IHAD fielded ever-more frantic phone calls from ever-more panicked Coveney supporters, which all transmitted variations of: ‘He’s going to pull out, he’ll see sense, he’ll do it for the party. I hope, I pray..’ The thing was, it didn’t quite serve Coveney’s interests to bow out. Ultimately, he was promoted to minister for foreign affairs by Leo Varadkar when the latter won. Coveney relinquished that role only in December of last year, and even then he was technically promoted again to the Department of Enterprise. Conversely, Kate O’Connell, the Dublin Bay South TD who had the misfortune to share a constituency with Varadkar’s director of elections (the now also departed Eoghan Murphy) lost her seat. Her political career is in cold storage unless Leo (who is still Taoiseach) performs an uncharacteristic U-turn.
As such, the terror was justified for some back in May 2017.
Many in Fine Gael will tell you that this fatally uneven Fine Gael leadership contest was caused by the ‘weighted’ electoral rules of the time (which are still in place).
In Fine Gael the parliamentary party (PP) has overwhelming power. Once Varadkar had them locked down – and he did early – it was all over. Fine Gael apparatchiks confirmed this weekend at their Special Conference in Maynooth that the weighting of 65% of the electoral college is granted to the parliamentary party, 25% to the Fine Gael members and 10% to local councillors.
There is a scheduled discussion at the Special Conference this weekend to put together motions to change the voting colleges. The gravity of the yet-to-be-decided changes will not bother Varadkar, as he can’t go any higher. Potential leadership candidates – Simon Coveney (still), Simon Harris (probable front-runner now, having emerged bloodied but unbowed in 2017) and Helen McEntee – will have skin in the game. Coveney, who won the membership college in 2017, might want a stronger weighting for this in the next leadership contest. Simon Harris, a consummate networker, may perhaps prefer to avoid a chicken and chips tour of Ireland and would want to maintain the strength of the PP. Or the membership could take over the Ard Fheis in Galway in April next year, where the proposals thrashed out this weekend will eventually be voted on, and give themselves ‘one member, one vote’ status. Because it is understood that a myriad matters could see democratic structure imposed on them. After the upcoming election, an agreed coalition would have to be put to a full vote of the membership of Fine Gael.
HOWEVER, as is the way in Irish politics, it is the leadership vote that really focuses minds. Varadkar cruised to victory in 2017 due to what some would say is a flawed voting system, and made the members and councillors – the infantry who put up posters, knock on doors and defend their superiors – redundant.
Others would say that the weighting in favour of the parliamentary party is not heavy enough!
Irish politicians watch our neighbours in Britain closely. Our political systems are virtually identical. Fine Gael is often labelled as resembling the Tory Party. (I’ve always thought this comparison unfair. In fact it is Fianna Fáil that more closely resembles the Tories, I believe, for their shared ability to manipulate principles into power.)
In recent years a far greater power was given to the Tory party membership – an admittedly large group but hardly representative of the multi-faceted, multi-cultural British population that elects a reasoned Government.
I’ve heard former colleagues of Boris Johnson say that had the Tory parliamentary party had its former power to elect the party leader, he would never have been elected. They, as people who worked with him on a daily basis, were aware of the man’s deep flaws. These flaws were exposed in the white heat of a global pandemic and imposed on the desperately sensitive diplomatic negotiations of the Brexit withdrawal. The membership, rather than learn, doubled down on the madness and elected Liz Truss to succeed Johnson.
The British Labour Party membership, too, was given new powers and elected the Marxist IRA sympathiser Jeremy Corbyn, almost obliterating the party.
Fianna Fáil caused itself internal fractiousness, particularly over the 8th Amendment, with the introduction of the ‘one member, one vote’ system for major decisions. But this was brought in after the evisceration of the party in 2011 and reforms were necessary to get the party membership behind the still weak new leader, Micheál Martin.
We have entered a new era of smaller parliamentary parties for the traditional centrist parties – because Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael dominate the political battleground to a lesser extent.
There will be voices this weekend who say that because there are fewer of their members in the Dáil, the big decisions need to be opened up to a greater spread.
Fine Gael may also feel that their first leadership campaign (if one excludes the heave against Enda Kenny in 2010) for nearly 15 years was a sham because of their current system. There will likely be claims that one member/ one vote is more democratic.
Democracy was founded in Athens. But we must remember that Ancient Greek democracy was not all-inclusive. It was an elite in society deciding crucial issues of the day based on their status.
What is democratic for the ranks of Fine Gael may not actually assist Irish democracy more generally.
In Britain, flawed leaders elected by non-professional members tore a country apart, and almost brought down an economy.
Politicians are elected to lead. And if they fail, they can be unelected again.
But party members can operate without the chastening responsibility of accountability to the general public.
When resetting a clock, it is usually a good idea to have another clock to tell you the correct time – or you risk compounding an error into the future.
Fine Gael members may feel as if it is time for a change – but what that change should be requires careful consideration.
Or they may find themselves labouring under the old axiom, ‘act in haste, repent at leisure’.