Michael D. can convert the nation

Enda Kenny spoke in Mullingar on Monday about a "message", "sent out" (aren't they all?) by the recent local and European elections: "the Irish people are demanding a change of government".

He saw it as the responsibility of Fine Gael and Labour to build not just an alternative government but "a better alternative, one which puts the people's interests first".

God save us from all harm but how could someone, even after years in the Dáil, say something like that without curling up in embarrassment? There has never been a government, perhaps in the history of humankind, that did not purport to put the people first or some variant of that platitude. That's what Bertie Ahern says and indeed thinks he is about. It is even what Michael McDowell thinks he is about.

The point of politics now, if it is not simply to play musical chairs, is to define what a better alternative would be, what it means in concrete terms to put the people first; indeed, to state what people you put first, for one can't put all the people first.

Pat Rabbitte knows this quite well but he also fears that if he gets too prescriptive about what putting some people first means or what might constitute a better alternative, then some of the electorate will be alienated, some hostages to fortune may be given to Fianna Fáil and the PDs and the election may be lost, along with any chance of Pat Rabbitte being a major player in government.

Now it is not ignoble for someone like Pat Rabbitte to wish to avoid prejudicing his and his party's chances of election to government. All politicians of his ilk (by which I mean politicians of ability who want to create a fairer society) believe that if they are placed in a central position of power, they can manoeuvre to make society better, certainly better than it would be had the other crowd remained in office.

And personally, I have no doubt this would be so. In a coalition government with Fine Gael and the Greens, Pat Rabbitte and Labour would set the agenda - not difficult, since Fine Gael has no agenda and the Greens have too many! But the problem is the constraints that would operate on Pat Rabbitte in government by the sentiment of the electorate.

As of now, there is no support, or rather not enough support, for any fundamental alteration of power relations in society.

Although the majority of the people are disadvantaged by the existing power-relations, for the most part they do not perceive this and do not support policies that would change things. They have been persuaded that the only alternative to their present inferiority is an even greater inferiority.

We have allowed differences in wealth and income - which many see as justifiable for reasons to do with incentive, although very many of the vast fortunes have come from speculation - to spill over to other spheres: into healthcare, education, media power and influence, the criminal justice system, political influence and access to what is called arts and culture. Thereby we have created massive inequalities and unfairness. It seems to me that the point of politics is to persuade people this is wrong and that an alternative arrangement could be better and fairer.

And that, once persuaded, the people - or many of them - would vote for parties that promise to create a fairer society, with fairer distribution of income and wealth, involving some higher taxes.

Anyway, what I am getting at is simply this. An opportunity arises in the next few weeks to do just that - to engage in real politics involving a campaign to persuade people to support the idea of a fairer society and the necessary policies to create that. It is the presidential campaign.

Irrespective of what one thinks of Mary McAleese - and my view is that she has reverted the presidency to its former non-role - she will be the Fianna Fáil candidate in the campaign. She will try to wriggle a little from the constraints of the Fianna Fáil/PD corsets but essentially she is their woman.

A campaign that takes on what Fianna Fáil and the PDs represent and vigorously espouses a fairer society and the means to achieve that, could lay the ground for a radical government, spearheaded by Labour.

Last week in this column, I was too dismissive of Michael D. Higgins as the Labour candidate.

On reflection, I think he could be exhilarating. I have been reminded how at a recent Labour conference he was inspirational, almost evangelical.

No one can doubt where he stands on the equity and fairness issue. Anyway, wouldn't it be wonderful to have a poet in the park? And if Labour dithers, the Greens must act. It would galvanise the party. If run properly, it would sort out what the party stands for in its own mind and in the mind of the electorate. And if they were clever, the campaign could be self-financing. Go for it.