|
Protecting Democracy in a Reunited Ireland.
In an era when democracy is the preferred political system for
enlightened societies around the world, why then are so many
well-established democracies being challenged by inside actors
advancing populist solutions to complex issues and secondly, why are
so many citizens supporting such an authoritarian bent?
How to counter such anti-democratic posturing from taking hold in a
reunited Ireland is the subject of this article.
 Without reverting to clichés to extol the virtues of democracy,
suffice to say that democracy is the only political system that most
of us have experienced, a way of life and living that we take for
granted. It allows us to choose our government, to criticize and
peacefully protest government policy, and to live our lives without
fear of government retribution. It also allows us to move freely in
our own country and in other democratic countries.
Democratic
rights are ours by natural law, in as much as we afford others the
same rights.
It would be difficult to imagine living under a political system
controlled by an authoritarian leader
where we would have to toe the line in our every action and
utterance. That possibility is not as far-fetched as one may think.
It is happening right now in a number of democracies in Europe,
South American, the Middle East and also in the cradle of the first
modern democracy, the United States.
The first anti-democratic steps have been taken in Poland and
Hungary by authoritarian leaders where previously independent
judicial systems has been brought under their direct control.
Israel is doing the same thing. The MAGA movement in America is
hell bent on upending democracy in America after two hundred and
fifty years of standing tall for liberty, the life-blood of American
democracy. The people have elected
authoritarian leader in Argentina and Venezuela who promised to lay
waste to democracy on the altar of political expediency.
To what extent these anti-democratic movements succeed remains to be
seen.
The road to authoritarianism is well sign-posted and travelled. The
most common stratagem followed by authoritarian leaders is to
exploit public unrest or grievances such as the lack of adequate or
affordable housing, homelessness, poor health care, migration or
some other hot button issue. They and their cohorts blame democracy
for government inaction or indifference to the plight of the
ordinary hard-working taxpayer. They argue that democracy is the
breeding ground for poor government policies, vested interests,
legislative indecision, and for bureaucratic and judicial
interference in government affairs. The solution they espouse is for a
no-nonsense leader to take control of the government and get thing
done. That scenario may sound simplistic, but nonetheless cunning
enough to hoodwink the unsuspecting majority until it’s too late.
Ireland is not immune from would-be authoritarian leaders
capitalizing on the frustration of ordinary citizens than any of the at-risk
democracies mentioned above. Such an attempt was made in
the early 1930s by Eoin O’Duffy, the garda (police) commissioner who
tried but failed to effect a coup to prevent the first Fianna Fail
government from taking power after decisively winning the general
election of 1932. Click
here
for a detailed account of O’Duffy's career, failed coup attempt and
fascist pursuits.
Apart from the rise of authoritarianism, another vulnerability for
Ireland is religious dogmatism. Ireland has a penchant or at least a
history of docility regarding the role of the church in their lives.
Their acceptance of the church as the arbiter of truth in all things
has been a crutch for the vast majority of the people, especially
during the last century. The role of the church in the secular
sphere was indistinguishable from that of the government. Government
policy was set within parameters conforming to Christian ethos.
Practically all social programs and institutions were controlled and
managed by the church at the behest of the government, a regrettable
dereliction of government responsibility. A return to that way of
life is akin to returning to a darker age, a prospect that also must
be guarded against in a reunited Ireland.
The Reunited Ireland envisioned in the Eire Athaontaithe proposal
would be a liberal democracy, which is to say a form of
representative democracy where an individual's civil liberties and
economic freedom is protected by limiting the power of the
government. This protection would be enshrined in a written
constitution that would define the powers of the government and the
separation and distribution of such powers. The constitution would
also include a social contract to ensure that the state serves the
will of the people, who collectively are the source of all the
political power entrusted to the state.
Although a reunited Ireland would be a federal Republic created by a
written constitution that all citizens must obey and bear allegiance
to, that in itself would not be enough to stop an
authoritarian-minded leader from
circumventing democracy. Such an individual would know how to
manipulate the political system and the rules of evidence to
frustrate and delay any legal proceedings brought against them ---
until it’s too late.
As the people are the ultimate guardians of democracy and the source
of all the political power entrusted to the state, it is incumbent
on us, the people, to remain engaged in the political process after we cast our
vote. By voting we exercise our power to select our representatives
therefore, we must hold them accountable for promoting the policies
they campaigned on. Representatives who renege on their commitment
to their constituents or violates their oath of office to defend
democracy and by extension the constitution are unfit for office and
should not be reelected. We must remain vigilant to ensure that the
government represents the will of the people collectively, and not
that of special interests or benefactors.
Purveyors of news, including newspapers, radio, and television must
be free from censorship of undue influence by owners or government
officials to inform the people what is happening in government. They
must do so without distorting the facts or the taint of bias.
Free-wheeling social media companies must be discouraged from
peddling or promoting conspiracy theories or allowing their platforms
to be used to communicate plans for violent demonstrations or riots.
Narrowly tailored laws must be in place to prohibit social media
messaging condoning violence against any group because of gender,
race, origin, religion or sexual orientation. Anti-democratic
propaganda on social media platforms must also be prohibited under
penalty of law.
As most authoritarian leaders rise from
within political parties represented in government,
elected representatives are the first
line of defense against any drift towards
authoritarianism by a party leader or a usurper. Because of
their participation in policy debates and election campaigns,
elected representatives have an inside track on what their
colleagues are planning, therefore are better positioned to take
decisive action to stop any subversive activity from gaining
purchase. Party operatives inside or outside the government who
support such an activity are complicit and must be dealt with as the
law requires. Politicians or public servants who stand idly by are
unfit for public service and treated accordingly.
Law enforcement and public prosecution agencies must be tuned in to
what is happening in the political sphere with a clear understanding
of what line of speech constitutes rough and tumble politics as
opposed to incitement to hatred and violence. There is much latitude
in the exercise of political discourse in legislative chambers and
political campaigns, a necessary element in the exercise of
democracy. Therefore, any perceived breach must be examined to
determine if it poses a danger to democracy. When a breach is found
to have occurred it much be dealt with decisively. Political
interference must not be tolerated in any ensuing legal proceedings.
When an individual is brought before a court of law for subversive
actions or behavior aimed at undermining democracy, it implies that
the treat is real and imposes a clear and present danger to
democracy and the rule of law. Therefore, the judicial system must
be up to the task of dispensing justice to those who would engage in
such activities. On the other hand, courts must ensure that the
charges being adjudicated are valid and that the rights of the
individual charged are not violated in a rush to judgment.
The greater good is not always the driving force for government
policy in Ireland and elsewhere. It should be, as that is what
the people who voted for their representatives expected.
Unfortunately, many political parties and their elected
representatives are hard-wired to cater to special interest
groups and benefactors to the detriment of the greater
good. As a consequence, the lack of ‘greater good’ government
policy fuels discontent and gives ammunition to demagogues and
would-be dictators to ploy their
authoritarian-laced solutions to the myriad problems ignored
by the government.
High on the list of such problem is the lack of economic equity
and wealth and income inequality. Bringing economic equity and
wealth and income into balance would help alleviate many of the
other problems affecting the majority of society. That task
would rank high in the reunited Ireland envisioned in the Eire
Athaontaithe proposal.
In the final analysis, the people, more than any other political
or legal bulwark of democracy, can prevent its subversion if
they remain engaged in the political process. A disinterested
populace is an invitation to the slayers of democracy and
would-be dictators.
A proactive government and an informed and engaged populace is
the lifeblood of democracy.
|
