Presidential boundaries
Not so long ago, the term “intellectual” qualified as a dirty word. It was used to dismiss people who challenged established orthodoxies. One of the consequences was the emergence of a submissive culture where those in authority knew best and where public debate on social ideas was limited. Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese loosened a traditional straitjacket that had constrained what a President might say. They encouraged public discourse on the nature of a caring society and what it meant to be Irish. Michael D Higgins has continued in that vein and has challenged neo-liberal economic policies, fiscal austerity and their social consequences.
Nobody – least of all Government Ministers – should be surprised by his comments. Before his election, President Higgins promised to articulate these specific concerns and received more than one million votes. In his inaugural address, he emphasised the need to establish a different set of values as the basis for a profoundly ethical and inclusive society. In speeches to the London School of Economics last year and to the European Parliament in Strasbourg last week, he developed those themes, referring to the damage caused by out-of-control financial markets and rating agencies and the need for democratic accountability. The core of his message, however, involved a need for social solidarity and inclusiveness, fairness and ethical behaviour.
The President has enjoyed a good relationship with the Government and opposition parties. But his forthright comments have brought rumblings of concern that traditional boundaries might be breached, leading to a confrontation with Government. That response appears to be unnecessarily apprehensive, in view of the diplomatic way in which Mr Higgins conducts himself. On the death of Margaret Thatcher, he formally sympathised with her family and supporters, noting she had been a conviction-based leader who had drawn on a scholarship that demanded markets without regulation.
As Ireland prepares to exit the EU/IMF bailout, presidential comments that were once shrugged off by politicians have increasing relevance. A speech to the European Parliament on the damage caused to society by unaccountable market forces caused no fuss. But when Mr Higgins addressed a St Vincent de Paul conference in Dublin, alarm bells were sounded. It was not that the message had altered; it was that domestic circumstances intruded. Mr Higgins criticised past decisions that advanced private interests. He suggested that, as the economy was re-built, real meaning should be given to a citizenship that was ethical, fair and all-encompassing. Few would disagree. The President has an important role to play in promoting debate on the kind of society that should emerge from the wreckage of the Celtic Tiger.
