Opinion of President unaltered

Mary McAleese's referral of the Health Amendment Bill to the Supreme Court caused me to waver on my estimation of her as President.

Although there are excellent reasons never to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court, this was an exception. An exception because those most affected by the Bill would often not be in a position to challenge it after it became law.

My wavering was steadied by her Christmas message. She began: "A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to one and all". Then there were "heartfelt Christmas and New Year greetings". A reference to this "great Irish family at home and abroad". Brain-dead language, formulaic stale imagery. No effort to express clear sentiments in fresh vivid terms, the old clichés reheated.

This followed by the smug mantra of her presidency: "This is a successful and achieving nation with a thriving economy and a vibrant culture." A few more tired banalities and then this: "We are a people whose innate decency has inspired us always to look out for one another, and to work to make sure no one is left behind."

Where did this insight come from? Since when have we always looked out for one another? How can a society, whose political imperative is tax reduction, be characterised as one whose members always look out for one another? Who the hell, for instance, cares about poverty nowadays - remember the sneers about the "poverty industry" - who cares about Travellers, about refugees? We enacted a constitutional amendment a few months to deprive children born here to foreigners an entitlement to Irish citizenship! We rejoiced two years ago when the Supreme Court held Irish citizen children had no right to have their parents remain with them in Ireland.

Towards the end of the Christmas message there is a bit about the Irish having a "legendary capacity for generosity". God, does the woman reflect at all on what has been happening here? Remember the promises about Overseas Development Aid and the solemn commitment to reach the 0.7 per cent of GNP target by 2007 and how those solemn promises have been dishonoured? All this hardly matters, aside from the serial debasement of political language by the lazy use of worn metaphor.

But there is another dimension to those Christmas greetings that goes beyond the bland, although almost certainly unintentionally so. It is buried in the insipid language of the rest of the message but carries with it a political charge that is essentially insidious. This bit reads: "This Christmas, as many of us enjoy the benefits of our remarkable progress, let us renew our commitment to one another and especially to those who are still struggling and for whom a helping hand would make the difference between enduring life and enjoying life in all its fullness".

As it happens George Bush said almost the same in his Christmas message.

He said: "Christmastime reminds each of us . . . we are called to love our neighbour just as we would like to be loved ourselves. By volunteering our time and talents where they are needed most, we help heal the sick, comfort those who suffer, and bring hope to those who despair - one heart and one soul at a time." Those remarks are deeply ideological. They convey the idea that deprivation is not an issue of justice, requiring policy and institutional change, but a matter for charity and voluntary effort. The poor, disadvantaged and dispossessed do not have a "right" to justice, merely that they should be afforded a "helping hand".

I am quite sure Mary McAleese did not intend to make an ideological point, that the phraseology was merely part of the unthinking gobbledegook that marks her presidency. But gobbledegook is not always harmless, even when it is unthinking. There is a political charge to this that ultimately does harm. Injustice is not rectifiable by charity, it is rectifiable by justice.

People "who are still struggling" are still struggling because of a society that denies equal educational opportunity, equal healthcare, equal right to housing, equal right to most of the bare necessities of life. They are "still struggling" because our political system, our political culture and our media are massively biased against them.

Charity is irrelevant. "Helping hands" merely disguise the unfairness of the system and society.

This is a very political President, although almost certainly she does not perceive that. She is the representative of the smug status quo. The blather of a nation in its stride, and of this being a "successful and achieving nation with a thriving economy and a vibrant culture" is not just banal, it has a political vibe that essentially things are fine, and a few "helping hands" here and there can smooth out the inequalities and injustices.

What a terrible pity Michael D. Higgins was not permitted to run against her. At least those smug banalities might have been challenged and the prospect of an inspiring, articulate, challenging president would have been on offer.