JUDGING by last week's opinion poll, the Anything But Fianna Fail (ABFF) coalition is set to win the forthcoming elections. Who would have thought, a mere four months ago, that a Government which had been visited by a calamity like the Lowry affair would so rapidly climb to the heights of popularity?
You've got to admit that the realisation of a scenario in which Fine Gael stands tall and smelling of roses while the chattering classes get warmed up for another bout of high dudgeon about telephone tapping is deserving of a round of applause for someone or other.
I have no particular interest in what form the next government may take. If pushed for a preference, as between the present lot and a Fianna Fail/PD coalition, I would unhesitatingly plump for the present lot. Contrary to what I sense is the perception out there in Irish Times reader land, I have not a shred of sympathy for Fianna Fail. I believe that man for man, so to speak, the present Government is infinitely superior to anything the FF/PD combination could put together.
With just a couple of exceptions, the present Fianna Fail front bench is even less inspiring than its recent predecessors, and this is saying something. I admit I would have liked to see the FF/Labour combination given a better chance, but the core values of the chaterati, and the style of the Labour leadership, ensured that particular hope is history. So be it. I accept, as always, the undemocratic decisions of the elite.
But I reserve the right to continue pointing out what is going on. And what is going on is a careful orchestration designed to ensure that any perverse wishes on the electorate's part do not interfere with the plan to have the present Government continue in office for another period.
Here we must be careful. When someone tries to outline how a particular set of vested interests has succeeded in bringing about its desired outcome in a given situation, it is usually assumed that what is being talked about is a "conspiracy". But the concept of conspiracy is less helpful and less interesting than it might once have been.
We have moved on to an era in which it is no longer necessary for people with common interests to meet in darkened rooms in order to bring their will to bear on the events of the day. We live in the post conspiracy era, in which results can be achieved without a word of direct communication between those who share the interests in question.
In writing about modern Irish politics, for example, I have tried to make a distinction between a "conspiracy" and a cultural "understanding" or "orchestration". But neither are these ideal terms, for they suggest that strings are consciously being pulled, that someone, somewhere has written down the orchestration, and that there is a conductor within sight, holding everything together.
But in the modern cultural orchestration, nobody gives orders, at least not in any sense that might be admissible. The vested interests to be protected are at one and the same time deniable and universally understood. The agenda, although manifest to all, is never truthfully stated. But the agenda is never in doubt, for it sits on the surface like a bad toupee.
Now, it has long been an agreed part of the agenda of Modern Ireland that Fianna Fail needs to be either fundamentally changed or got rid of. This is rarely stated in explicit terms since it might appear a little undemocratic. All we hear expressed publicly is a degree of impatience with the backwardness of Fianna Fail "culture", an unease about the alleged tendency of the party to play ducks and drakes with various ethical sacred cows. But the cultural contract goes much deeper than such objections might suggest.
There is a profound repugnance to Fianna Fail in the modern Irish mind. It would be interesting to analyse this empirically to ascertain if the prejudice has objective basis. For example, it would appear from conventional wisdom that Fianna Fail has more gougers, go boys and chancers than any other party. But is this not simply a function of simple numerical supremacy, and can we be sure that an objective examination would not find that the party also has more non drinkers, stamp collectors and daily communicants?
IT doesn't really matter, because everyone knows that the hostility to Fianna Fail is due; to an aesthetic aversion founded on a deep fear of people with straw in their hair and cow dung on their shoes. The stated reasons for objecting to the party are just a shadow play for this cultural distaste.
This view is shared by almost everyone in Ireland with any semblance of influence, apart, of course, from Fianna Fail members and supporters. It is shared, most pertinently, by about 98 per cent of opinion formers, including political correspondents, editors, columnists and leader writers. Almost unconsciously, the entire apparatus moves in accordance with the unstated agenda of disposing of Fianna Fail.
To be inside this culture is akin to sitting in the back of a taxi, being pummelled by the views of someone who clearly believes there is no other way of seeing things. Only those who support the ABFF understanding can be objective. Those few who do not join in are treated with contempt and suspicion, for only pig ignorance or some dark secret could explain such obvious bias. Of course, it is important, too, to allow such people vent their wrong headed views, since this adds a gracing aspect to what would otherwise be the rather naked prejudice of the cultural understanding.
As I have said on many occasions, I am not a Fianna Failer by birth or inclination. Speaking purely from a personal perspective, I believe that removing the party from Irish politics may well be a good idea. For example, it would save a huge amount of time now expended in talking about "morality" and "standards".
My problem is with the inconsistencies which the covert nature of the ABFF understanding throws up, requiring those who participate in it to say one thing when Fianna Fail is implicated, and the opposite when it is not.
But still, I must confess that, from time to time, I have given thought to what might happen if people like me, who insist on pointing out the obvious, decided to roll in with the consensus. Suppose we decided to begin attacking Fianna Fail at every opportunity, just like everyone else? This, I think, would have two effects.
Firstly, it would mean that we would be welcomed back into the bosom of respectable journalism, and very soon would find we were being quoted approvingly by some of the leading political pundits.
But such delight would quickly evaporate, for without the token dissenting voices, their cosy consensus would be exposed in all its undemocratic splendour. On this basis, it might be argued that those of us who have continued to defend the "indefensible" have been doing our democracy a great disservice. For without our minor chorus of dissent, the ABFF coalition would be revealed for the tottering hegemony of neurotics and schemers it is.