Decline in political participation must be taken seriously

Drapier hardly needed this week's EU report to tell him that fewer people than before are involved in party politics here, either…

Drapier hardly needed this week's EU report to tell him that fewer people than before are involved in party politics here, either as party members or as activists. It's been one of the common features of politics over the past decade, and while we are not the worst in Europe, we are lower than most people might expect.

It all happened very suddenly. Twenty years ago most parties had no difficulty getting people to do the ordinary things of everyday politics - deliver election literature, canvass, man polling stations, put up (and where possible pull down) election posters and of course sell the inevitable tickets for draws and functions. In addition people attended monthly meetings of their branch or cumann and for the most part had a sturdy loyalty to the party of their allegiance.

Today's branch and cumann meetings are a pale shadow of their former selves. Many branches exist only on paper, meeting on a sporadic basis, if at all. Much of the postering is done commercially, while party literature is delivered more often than not by the personal organisation of the TD rather than by the party machine.

What's happening is strange, especially since party headquarters have grown significantly at the same time as local organisations have shrunk both in numbers and activity. The great waves of electoral euphoria which brought Dessie O'Malley's PDs from a standing start to 14 seats and which elected Mary Robinson and fed the Spring tide of 1992 have left no lasting impact on their parties.

READ MORE

It was as if people looked for a quick fix and, not finding it, simply melted away. Some will say Sinn Fein is different. As indeed it is, and not all of the differences do it credit but the jury is out yet on how strong it really is and if it will sustain that strength.

So what's wrong? Is politics just another casualty of affluence or do the reasons go deeper? Drapier asked these questions of people he knew who used to be involved or people he felt should be involved.

The first thing mentioned as a major turn-off was the sheer tedium of branch or cumann meetings. The format belonged to a different age - ritualistic reading of minutes, reports from officers, single transferable speeches, the petty personal rows and a strong sense of ownership on the part of older members determined to put ambitious neophytes in their place. Enthusiasm or new ideas were invariably frowned upon and young people especially felt they had more enjoyable and more profitable ways of spending their evenings.

All parties have tried to vary the formula of monthly meetings, to have more policy discussions, outside speakers, a better social content, but to date at any rate with no great success.

The second reason Drapier picked up was: "You're all the same. There's no difference between the parties any more."

And of course there is a certain truth in that - on the North, on Europe, even on the economy there is a strong element of consensus. But that consensus is there because parties have learned from each other. The Fianna Fail policy on the North is very different today to what it was 20 years ago; the PDs have seen some of their key ideas become part of the national consensus; Garret FitzGerald's constitutional crusade, which once frightened so many, is now part of the conventional wisdom; the Fianna Fail brokered national agreements have become the norm.

Drapier could go on. Any close reading will show that there are differences between the parties, not just differences of policy but of personnel, of emphasis, of ethos, of values. But why should it be so wrong that they can hammer out agreement on key national issues?

Would people really prefer the class-driven politics of hatred and exclusion which characterise so much of current British experience?

The next line Drapier hears is "Why bother? The Dail doesn't matter, the country is run by Europe or the multinationals or the unions."

Certainly it is true that the Dail is just one competing body when it comes to the question of who governs, who takes the big decisions. But it has always been thus. For much of its lifetime the Dail was dominated by strong governments and acted as a rubber stamp for these governments. It did little to assert itself and even less to reform itself. But it still remained, under the Constitution, the key institution in the State, to which all governments were accountable, and itself ultimately answerable to the people.

Today the Dail is making a new attempt to carve out a real role for itself. The committee system is working, Taoiseach's Question Time has made Bertie Ahern more accountable than any previous Taoiseach and TV in the Dail chamber brings that accountability into every home.

The truth is that parliaments around Europe are fighting to assert themselves, not just against governments but against the EU, against bureaucrats and against powerful financial forces. The PAC, Bernard Durkan's European Affairs Committee, Sean Doherty's Public Enterprise Committee, are just some examples of where this is happening in Leinster House.

Then, of course, there is the sleaze. Drapier is proud to be a politician and he is disgusted and angry at what some of his colleagues have done. There should be no place for such people in politics and whatever controls are necessary on an ongoing basis should be in place.

But let Drapier say also that the numbers involved are very, very small. The same names recur and recur but when most people think of their local TD or senator they will see someone who works hard, stays local and has a modest and honest lifestyle.

Politics should be better able to discipline or expel those members whose behaviour warrants it and it is a standing reproach to us that we have not changed our regulations to accomplish this, but by and large politicians operate in a much more open and accountable environment than most others.

One other factor which Drapier picked up is the morally superiour "I don't need politics. I'm doing very well on my own. And you're all only a bunch of second-raters anyway."

This comes most often from people who are doing well and who believe that they live on a higher plane - the Celtic Tiger, the Good Friday agreement, the huge investment in education, the attraction of outside investment, all happened without the intervention of government. "Now will you push off, Crispin has a speech and drama class waiting and we're dining in Guilbauds this evening."

We have always had such people, people who feel they are above the concept of society and for whom the world is "me". Such people see politics as unworthy of their efforts, but nonetheless are the first to rush to judgment and demand that something should be done, but by somebody else of course, when their own interests are in the slightest way threatened.

Anyway, Drapier takes the EU report seriously. We do need more people in politics. And politics does matter.