Democratic Revolution ?

[typical]

However we need a messiah to breed life into the cause.

Any suggestions?

I suggest that a cult of personality is the last thing we need. The will of the messiah becomes the will of the people, we need the opposite, we need to exercise collective will.

No politician is going to vote themselves out of a job, the ability to fiddle expenses or the opportunity to be corrupt, messiah or not. The only way to force changes which would affect their ability is to petition it strongly, you need millions of signatures and the strong media support that should generate.

Let the collective will provide the focal point rather than a single person.

[antiestablishmentarian]

Firstly, as a former Progressive Democrat, I would encourage you not to use your proposed name. We were called the PDs by everyone and the meaning in the name was lost. Similarly, you'll be called Triple PI and your noble nomenclature will be pointless.

As for your principles, clearly I reject them all as juvenile fantasy combined with unattainable communist goals and a previously failed 'tax em while ye got em' philosophy. Universal everything combined with forced income redistribution sounds good in a Ladybird version of the Communist Manifesto but in practice results in systems with the user of the service thought of last and the service itself therefore being the minimum accepted standard. Look at our Health System. Forced income redistribution results in evasion, avoidance, black market and emigration with a consequent economic stagnation and reduced tax revenues. The people who pay most income tax simply will not wear your philosophy and while you think they have no choice but to give you their money, they do, and therefore your aspirations will fail as all communist states do.

As for your Tobin Tax! It seems your 'solutions' are to try to think of as many taxes as possible.

I don't think you need start a new party. SF and Labour both espouse your ehm, economic philosophy. Just join them.

Quit while your ahead cos your posts are just adding insult to injury: as a former member of the PD's you are directly and personally responsible for what is happening in this country at the moment and especially with what is going on in the Health Service. Moreover the fact that Ireland had low tax rates didn't prevent people like Denis O'Brien fromupping sticks and going to sunnier climes. Finally, take a look at the Nordic countries: I disagree with a large amount of their policies but one thing it does show is that higher taxation rates lead to better, wealthier and more sustainable societies.

[Martin75]

typical;
I think it is very interesting what you say regarding messiah/manager. Certainly, in the recent decades, to be called pragmatic was seen as a compliment in Irish politics, and, of course, unrealistic idealism is unwelcome; however we have learned, surely, that bypassing belief systems in favour of expediencies fits into short-termism and populism.
Our proceeding Taoiseach (and his advisers) were seen as pragmatic, and perhaps this was beneficial in a context like Northern Ireland where there already was an excess of principles and beliefs in place. However, we can see that when it related to developing an economy and society (with society wide and long-term based motives) then the fit was particularly poor.
I am not sure that we can't encapsulate the majority of our shared priorities in simple terms.
In my estimate, we are individuals but clearly we are codependent. We are, ultimately, empathic in our desires. If there are floods we want to have contributed to the best possible rescue services for people, even if it is not us. The balance of individual freedoms and social obligations are central to decisions that face us in all policy and should really be governed by norms. I, personally agree with the Nordic model, in that one can argue that the ideological and political division of the 20th century like any division pushed to extremes capitalism and socialism. Perhaps the proximity geographically of the Nordic countries to the U.S.S.R. coupled with their maintaining strong degrees of personal freedom. Philosopher called Hawls' famous veil expirement where one had to select the degree of safety net that a society holds (but in this instance has no way of placing themselves in a particular position within that society) showed that practically all people, in fact, want a very large safety net; and certainly not the individualistic low govt. intervention-in-the-market model that we feasted on in recent decades.
None of this is ground breaking stuff, of course, and this guy for example was oft cited by Clinton and Blair in their 'Third Way'. It is the doing is the thing from these principles though. How for down the road you get of equality in a society is difficult to measure at any given moment; but surely it is agreeable in Ireland now that we need to run hard and fast from the what the Galway Tent symbolised; and we the majority are the only ones that can do this. This is why I suggested the Irish Participatory Political Party in an earlier post; in ways we need to clear a lot of the clutter of the political culture as it now stands in Ireland out of the way. This can be better achieved by beginning a party that will infect change in all the others and over time perhaps gain some electoral success in itself; than merely publicly complaining?

[typical]

I'm not really talking about pragmatic politicians or managers, I really don't believe that politicians, of either ideological or managerial bent, can really be trusted to carry out the will of the people. They just aren't equipped to do it.

The whole power institution seems a bit outdated, the world changes utterly in 5 months and we have politicians in power for 5 years, it's just so unnecessarily slothful and creaking.

Arguably, the greatest stimulus for societies movement from feudalism to democracy was the printing press and the creation of a liberated media, I think we have the opportunity to move away from the static democracy we have now to a more fluid form with all the technology allowing information availability.

The politicians aren't likely to change the system themselves, and a new political party just exacerbates the problem, so I think the best thing to do is just collectively demand the power peacefully. I really have no stomach for another government that's the same as this one, I don't think anyone does, but I don't see any other outcome in the present system. My ideal would be something like 50 or 60% of the people signing a petition demanding a change to the system instead of voting in the next election. Higher than most turn outs.

I'ld also ban parties altogether, have a government of independents, but that's a different thread.

[spotty]

This thread is another attempt to undermine the country by undermining our government. We need stability and unity, not revolution and treason.

We are all Irishmen. We are all in this together. We need to all put our shoulder to the wheel, carry the burden, and bear the weight of the journey to recovery. This constant dissent is distracting, and damaging to international confidence.

[typical]

While we may all now be yoked to the harness FF has fashioned from the failed banks, the thieving developers and the failed institutions, I'll be happier to see FF under the wheels of the cart than in the driving seat.

[Cormac O Conachur]

This thread is another attempt to undermine the country by undermining our government. We need stability and unity, not revolution and treason.

We are all Irishmen. We are all in this together. We need to all put our shoulder to the wheel, carry the burden, and bear the weight of the journey to recovery. This constant dissent is distracting, and damaging to international confidence.

Spotty
The country is in a bad way, it didn't get this way on its own and it is calling out for change.
Your pleas for unity are all very noble, but being unified behind a hearse is a blind patriotism, with the thinking caps left back at home.

Unity behind reform however is good thing to have.

For reform we need leadership to unify behind. The current politicians are not providing this leadership. The whole system needs to be declogged and rebuilt.

International confidence you mention does not come from us acting like sheep to the slaughter. International confidence comes from our ability to make the country competitive again. If you are profitable, they will invest. If you are a dead awaiting burial they won't. We need reform. The current establishment is too deeply rooted to provide this change that is necessary.

Martin 75
A movement rather than a party is called for but the only thing that we can do is start from what we have, and that is at the next general election. ( your IPPP is a bit of a mouthful and will be abreviated. Call it something like Active Democracy. Does not lend itself to anagrams which is good.

Get elected on a platform of reform. Keep the reform simple and straight forward. Suggestions like
1. Go for a list system of government for 5 years. Have the people elect the cabinet and Taoiseach directly.
2. Reduce the amount of TDs to 60.
3. suspend the Seanad.
4. Hold local elections for local government so as to deal with local issues only.
5. Reduce the local authorities districts to 20 or so.
6. scrap the social partnership agreement and start a fresh with a new one.
7. Let Anglo Irish Bank to its own self inflicted fate.
8. Put in place funding from the exchequer to fund campaigns for various candidates and cap their spend and exposure to ensure equity between candidates and independence from vested interests.
9. A tax regime that is fairer, (and fairer does not need to mean anti enterprise. Fairer means fairer, and fairness is a universally accepted goal. It is simply not fair that because I have more smarts than joe average that I can exploit him for my own personal gain at a cost to society. Society comes first, and starts at protecting the most vulnerable and assisting them towards a more equal society. If you are smarter or more hardworking you will always be better of than the more challenged citizens, but your success should not come at a cost to society, that is the principle of fairness.)

some ideas to consider at least.

As regards a leader, you'd need a sound man or woman, not somebody popular necessarily, but generally respected by all owing to his ability and idealism. Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmet, Michael Collins type, are they around at this moment or can they be grow to fill the role. In fact you cannot appoint somebody for this role, you want somebody to wrestle it from all comers and make it his/her own.


Swiftian
There was more unity than you think, compromise on details was all that was needed. They main items tabled above would be universally accepted should it deliver reform.

Reform first, establish a new foundation for the state, and wether the state goes to the left or the right after the five years will be up to the electorate to decide.

[B]Typical [/B]
made a good point in that democracy got established with the spread of learning and information to the masses thro books. The ability to communicate today is vastly improved again and the ability for the citizens to involve themselves in National issues has never been greater and indeed will become greater as we enter the future. The representative form of democracy that we currently have is out dated in this regard, and the oft qouted cliche that 'All politics is local' is a confirmation that we are not getting the democracy that we desire and need to function effectively.

[Thac0man]

What are the thoughts about the chances of success of a democratic revolution.

Could a movement begin to radically change our political system with the following terms
1. A new Government for a fixed term of 5 years.
2. The Dail Only, no Seanad
3. The Taoiseach and Cabinet elected directly by the electorate, no opposition, no TD's, no senators.
4. The Programme for Government set out in broad terms for the five year term and voted on by the electorate.
5. This may require a vote to reneige on our sovereign debt relating to Anglo Irish. Let those Bond Holders Whistle. We need the money more than them.Use it to redevelope our economy and our competitiveness internationally.
6. Determine to raise taxes so as to build a soceity rather than an economy.
7. Maximise the salaries for Bankers, HSE Consultants, College Lectures, etc to be say 100k, or have some climbing scale of taxes to say 80% for anything above 200k.
8.Elect a president to listen to the people and give him/her power to turf out any of our Cabinet that is not performing or behaving as they should.


The current shower on either side of the Dail are worse than each other, the man in the street is being driven to death to support those on the right side of the deal. How about we all get on the wrong side of the deal for a while, 5 years, reform under a democratic banner . How would one kick start it off. Who would lead it, and get the role of President. A Peter Sutherland figure, Mary Robinson, Ray McSharry or a total unknown, but somebody that can bring reform.

While debate on the format of how government can be improved should be encouraged, the above is a recipe for disaster. Elect the Taoiseach and Cabinet, do away with all oppostion and then elect someone as President who can dismiss all other directly elected representitives? Do we have elections ever 6 months or less as offices are rotated at the Presidents whim? It simply makes so sense. The overall thrust the the OP seems to be to remove all viability, responsibilty and mandate from government - that now is sort of what we have aleady in the legal constructs that allow Ministers to claim they are powerless to reverse certain decisions or renegotiate certain deals.

The answer to our problems of governance is not to abolish the ability of ministers to make unpopular or necessary decision. In its current format or a variation of it, progress might be slow, but so is desintigtation. So called 'Grass Roots' democracy as we have seen in Venezuela allows one man to flush a country down a toilet, limited only by the amount of damage he can do per piece of legislation. The above in the OP is essentially what Chavez has done, the undesirable excessive results are the culmination of removing safe guards. Who dismiesses the president in the OPs scenario? As we have seen in Venezuela its never so simple as a recall - people who try that end up in jail. If a President dismiesses a minister who holds the portfolio in the interim till an election is held? Without a party structure what guarentee is there that ministers could co-operate? Agreeing a budget would be impossible. Without a stable mandate we would have politicians spend more time, not less, on political infighting.

Much of the limitations of our form of government derive from the limitations put in place to stop sucessive governments willfully destroying the programs of the previous administration. As we have seen previouly governments in a time of fiscal hardship were prepared out of little more than spite to destroy expensive infrastructure programs. This led to the intorduction of ministerial limitation through planning and contraactual laws etc but this has been open to abuse too. The Greens for instance were happily given portfolios that FF had already locked the state into through binding contracts. If Fianna Fail were looking at losing the next election they could through the current mecahanisms impose contracts their succssors would be tied to no matter how disasterous for the state. So change of some sort is needed, the safe guards have not worked.

If a Radical change is needed it is probably the introduction of a facility whereby the Presidents office can draft legislation that can be put before the Dail.

The overwhelming majority of the Seanad should be directly elected with no political party being able to nominate its appointees, their influence belongs and should stay in the Dail.

The policy of the Party whip is extended to both houses and this should not be the case.

The Dail should also hold crucial ballots in secret so the whip cannot be enforced.

The state should have more power to renegotiate contracts that are not value for tax payers money.

[stringjack]

The Dail should also hold crucial ballots in secret so the whip cannot be enforced.

It would also mean that it would be impossible to hold representatives responsible for how they voted, since we wouldn't be able to tell how they voted. The whip system is not the problem, and there's a direct and obvious trade-off between accountability and independence. If you want representatives to be independent of the short-term concerns of their constituents, then you have to make them unaccountable to their constituents in the short term.

[Martin75]

Hi all,
I agree with the comments regarding safeguarding against knee-jerk reactions. We must know the background of Irish Political history before we attempt to gain some of the changes we, in the majority, wish for.
I understand the difficulty with attempting to create a new movement; how do you leave the day job to begin with, who organises, pays for chairs the nationwide meetings and so on. To be honest if you combine a knowledge of Irish Political history, a desire to change much of what is so painfully, clearly wrong with our country and the reality of the difficulties in dedicating oneself to the limit of other commitments then perhaps we should really look to join the Labour Party en masse.
It is in many ways the only political party in Ireland in terms of having an ideological base and history; and a lack of corruption.
It is arguable that it is not unique in a relatively new nation that has fought for its independence, emerging from a singular goal (i.e. to evict the oppressor nation) then groups form with proximity and use of power at their cores rather than the evolution of governance ideologies.
So, we arrive at FF and FG two groups evolving with a very significant and emotive historical disagreement but with no clear ideological differences. In fact, with no clear ideology at all. Not having a set of principles allows these groups to use any principles at all and to change and so become more and more focused on seeking short-term measures that ensure electoral success and maintenance of one's position.
Labour, was formed in 1912, and in 1918 decided not to contest the westminster election so that the decision could be made between home rule and the then Sinn Fein party clearly. Of course, the failed U.S.S.R. expirement that shows that one can end up in the same place by travelling too far to the right or too far to the left; or that we can not enforce collaboration and cooperation but only encourage and accommodate it. This is also in keeping with Labour party history.
How come so little electoral success. Again, speaking in very general terms; FF & FG coming from such an emotive place became like a local GAA team where one placed allegiance. You may get upset with your teams performance, players etc. but you are not going to support the opposition. There was a linkage to catholicism and to nationhood and the relationship with Britain that all entrenched the numbers in their favours.

Is Labour the answer then; is it a perfect party model that we can all flock to blindly; of course not, it requires the type of innovative thinking and reform that occurs on these boards. I think looking at it though - it does have a number of important things. A strong honest leader, a good history (CAB, Divorce, and many progressive and liberal pieces of legislation for the portion and position of power held), importantly and absence of corruption in its history, generally population interseted in change and issues (surely if one was merely interested in electoral success, one would have joined FF or FG).

So, why not; lets join the party in our local areas, demand change and get the country and our contribution to it moving