Mary McAleese has good reasons for wanting another seven years in the Áras. The trouble is, it looks increasingly unlikely that she will have to explain them to the rest of us, or secure our approval for them, writes Breda O'Brien
In the absence of an election, we will have to guess why this intelligent, ambitious woman feels her energies will be best used by another term in the Park. Being rubber-stamped rather than elected diminishes both her appeal and her effectiveness.
Some weeks ago, I wrote a tongue-in-cheek piece, using the presidency as a point of departure to highlight the sometimes inane and narrow criteria used to characterise people as liberal or conservative.
It was perhaps ironic that so quickly afterwards someone declared his candidacy, who epitomises the reality that shallow categories of left and right do no justice to the complexity of Irish politics.
There was palpable excitement when Éamon Ryan announced his intentions.
The media pontificated that he was unknown outside his constituency, but whatever the truth of that, the few media appearances he made confirmed that he was capable of appealing to something in people which political parties rarely manage to reach. He wanted to talk about ideas.
He saw that the presidency is all about symbolism.
Every seven years it presents us with an opportunity to ask ourselves, what kind of symbolism best represents us now?
There has been a dearth of ideas in politics in recent times. Bertie Ahern and Fianna Fáil have given us celebrity politics, where the personal charisma of the leader, inexplicable as it is to some people, can be mined for electoral gain.
When that failed spectacularly in the recent elections, it was almost sad to see the scramble to find another identity that the Irish people might buy.
I have heard Éamon Ryan say: "In the absence of political discourse, what are you left with? Marketing."
My sense is that he is saying there is a lack of appetite among politicians to engage with ideas about the kind of Ireland that we want. In the absence of such discussion, those who stand to profit if we are merely obedient consumers rush to assure us that all we really need to obtain happiness is to buy more.
Éamon Ryan believes that Irish people want more than mindless consumerism, that the Celtic Tiger has left people with an almost indefinable sense of lack, a sense that there is more to life than commuting, work, childcare and perpetual tiredness.
In contrast, there is no sense of conviction about Fianna Fáil's lurch to the left.
Their search for an angle to sell to the Irish people in no way resembles being passionately enthused about a set of beliefs, and being willing to put yourself forward for election on the basis of those beliefs.
It is frequently said that Irish society is anti-intellectual, but it is probably truer that people are suspicious of ideas.
Yet those who don't like engaging with ideas, end up living by the ideas of others.
The dominant ideas in our society at the moment are that amassing wealth is the main priority, that values of solidarity are all very well, but it is individualistic values that have brought us economic success.
Yet Irish people are far from stupid. They can see clearly, that all things considered, it is better to be a wealthy country than a poor one, but not at the cost of losing a sense of community and purpose.
It is truly sad to see Fine Gael pleased to death with itself. It deliberately stymied an attempt by Dana Rosemary Scallon to secure a nomination.
By issuing edicts from head office, it took away one of the few powers that our pathetically weak local government system has, and its councillors meekly acceded.
Fine Gael is smugly expecting an electoral bounce for its cuteness. Instead, it should be ashamed of failing to see that a national conversation about our society's values is sorely needed, and that Dana, small though her natural constituency may be, has a right to take part in that conversation.
Who can bleat about inclusivity and diversity, if uncomfortable voices are deliberately excluded? It now looks as if Fine Gael's electoral plans are to exclude the Greens, too. Dana wanted to challenge the ever-encroaching power of the EU.
Éamon Ryan would have wanted to talk about the proposed European constitution, but from a different perspective.
He would have asked us to consider what kind of EU we want, and are we really comfortable with being part of a powerful trading bloc, which conspires to keep the developing world poor?
Some commentators declared that it was pointless to field a candidate against an incumbent as popular as Mary McAleese.
No doubt the shade of Brian Lenihan smiles wryly whenever the notions of "certain winner" and "presidential elections" arise in the same sentence.
Éamon Ryan would have attracted the youth vote, the socially concerned vote, the vote of those tickled at the prospect of four small children in the Áras, and, yes, the male vote, too.
However, a focus on success and failure misses the point. A race with Mary McAleese, Dana Rosemary Scallon, Éamon Ryan, and Michael D., would have provided us with a fascinating opportunity to examine where Ireland is now, and where we want to go. There are so few forums where we can discuss these vital issues. The media, at their best, can provide such a forum.
However, after Marian Finucane's interview with Éamon Ryan, it was pitiful to see that the question picked up by the media was whether any of the other potential candidates had smoked pot.
A far more worthwhile exercise would have been to ask: "What is your vision for Irish society? What do you think you would symbolise in this highly symbolic office?"
Sad as it was to see Éamon Ryan's candidacy prematurely buried, he did us a favour. For a brief few days, we saw that it was possible for politics to really engage us, instead of providing us with a potent soporific.
Instead of smug self-congratulation at being such efficient fixers, our political parties would be wise to reflect on the real losses incurred by a combination of cute hoor-ism, ineptitude, and failure to seize the day.