Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
Constantin Gurdgiev
well-defined succession from
Charles Haughey’s princely ‘Irelandom’ through
Garret Fitzgerald’s technocratic ‘Ireland-ism’,
to ‘Ireland Inc’ of Bertie Ahern. A line, cutting
across the Left-Right divide, traces the capture
of the State by narrow interest groups and the
resultant deficit of democratic checks and bal-
ances for our power élites.
Let us start with its two contrasting doctrines.
During a radio discussion, Garret Fitzgerald once
summed up to me his governance philosophy: “A
Government can impose any rate of tax on per-
sonal income it deems necessary”. No limits apply.
The recent Green Party Convention affirmed this
principle. Now, recall the statement by Anglo
Irish Bank’s Seán FitzPatrick: “The transfer of
loans between banks did not in any way breach
banking… or legal regulations. However, it is
clear to me, on reflection, that it was inappro-
priate and unacceptable from a transparency
point of view”. Spot the difference: FitzPatrick,
unlike Fitzgerald, recognises that legally per-
missible acts have ethical bounds. Now, I do not
for a second excuse FitzPatrick’s actions. But, for
Fitzgerald, if ideological sloganeering implies
destroying individual rights of others, so be it.
Teleological morality reigns supreme in the halls
of our business and political élites.
Why? In a normal democracy, the State’s
legitimacy and ethics are guarded by a robust
and independent social pillar, one that scruti-
nises and exposes the behaviour of the élites.
It comprises privately-financed think tanks
of all political denominations, social pressure
groups and non-aligned watchdog organisations.
Ireland has never managed to develop such a pil-
lar. In place of it, an ethical ‘Borg collective’ of
quangos, State-tied NGOs and subservient media
has evolved to shield the Irish State from exter-
nal scrutiny of its guiding principles. Our élites’
unchecked self-preservation instincts mean that
all independent thoughts and ideals that chal-
lenge the status quo are actively hunted down
or sidelined. Glass ceilings for promotion, non-
transparent hiring practices, non-meritocratic
awards of contracts – all serve the purpose of
isolating the perceived viruses of independent
thinking for which are substituted the political-
ly-correct catchphrases of compliant academics,
policy advisers, official media (e.g the Irish Times
and RTÉ) and the pillars of Social Partnership.
In the environment of unchecked ‘ends-
justify-means’ ethics, the artificial drive to
increase the diversity of our public represent-
atives is underway. Gender, race, ethnic and
social background quotas are being pushed
forward as epicycles to mask the woeful lack of
original thoughts and policies. It is the equiv-
alent of throwing woolly socks at a forest fire.
The system that produced John O’Donoghue and
Rody Molloy simply cannot be fixed by push-
ing ‘different looking’ bodies into politic. Only
removing the source of original corruption will
do the job. The latter can be done only through
opening up the State to real competition – in
provision of services, and in generating policy
ideas and controls. The Social Partnership that
crowds out all innovation must be relegated to
the scrapyard of history. The public sector must
be subjected to direct scrutiny by taxpayers. Full
accounts, expenses, salaries, and promotional
decisions must be produced. All major responsi-
bilities undertaken and performance appraisals
against these for all senior officials and public
representatives must be made public.
As the final dénouement of the process of our
ethical decay, even our opposition parties tailor
their political stances to the ubiquitous diktak of
the Permanent Government (the Civil Service
and their Unions). In Ireland, even a promise of
power distorts values. Fine Gael’s recent com-
mitment to the Machiavellian Social Partnership
is the case in point. As is Labour’s love affair with
neutered Social Democratic pragmatism. Sinn
Féin has reduced itself to cringingly unoriginal
and ideal-free slogans. The blandness of what
our parties and quangos profess to be their ‘pol-
icy platforms’ is soporific. Yet it produces daily
analytical treatises in the Irish Times and hour-
long programmes on RTÉ.
From Fintan O’Toole and
beyond, the Irish Left is the
embodiment of our ethical
decline. Complacent in the
State-sponsored destruction
of ethics, bought wholesale
into Mary Robinsinesque
‘sharing the pain’,‘protecting
the poor’ and ‘preserving
public services’ the Left
never questions the State.
Except when the State turns
down the Left’s requests
for more money. Formulaic policies abound –
increasing public spending, introducing racial
and gender quotas, enlarging the public sector
and broadening the Partnership. No questions
as to the system’s integrity or efficiency, are ever
asked. More public spending is intrinsically
good. Upholding people’s right to allocate their
time and income is ethically wrong. Full stop. A
Thought Equality authority may be just around
the corner. It would be a fitting finale for the dec-
ades of corporatism.
Dr Constantin Gurdgiev is adjunct lecturer in finance with
Trinity College, Dublin and a blogger with www.trueeconomics.
blogspot.com
“Gender, race, ethnic and social
background quotas are being
pushed forward as epicycles
to mask the woeful lack of
original thoughts and policies”
(in which we allow some fresh
light in on Village’s leftist ethos)
village_oct_09.indd 11 27/10/2009 15:37:35
