This is the time of year for reflection. The summer has finally arrived, and the Dail will be in recess soon. Many of its circle, both politicians and political correspondents alike, will be decamping to various summer schools to discuss the state of the nation.
Apart from late-night imbibing in local hostelries, the common theme of these schools tends to be talk of change, and plenty of it. To borrow a slogan from Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, change we can believe in.
The summer schools run on the idea that much is wrong with the nation, and that change is needed to improve matters. To this end, they bring together the great and good from the political world to tell those present what is necessary to make Ireland a better place.
Please log in or register with Independent.ie for free access to this article.
Log In
New to Independent.ie? Create an account
At the most high-profile of these annual gatherings, the MacGill Summer School in the picturesque town of Glenties in Co Donegal, the theme this year is ‘Can the centre hold? Radical new thinking needed’. Ignoring the paradoxical dilemma posed by the request for a radical centre (is it possible to be both?), the topics up for discussion include the rather long-winded: ‘Dogged by populism and growing disillusionment, if liberal democracy is to be saved new social, economic and political thinking is urgently required’; ‘The future of Ireland: fresh thinking is needed to bring North and South closer together to draw up a plan for the future’; and, the more succinct, ‘How to achieve a new and agreed Ireland and what form might it take?’
More change up for discussion then, including a demand for both new and fresh thinking, whatever the difference is between them.
But my own contribution in this time of reflection is to argue that the kind of change we should have is no more discussion of change.
Let’s stop saying that we need to change our politics. No more of the snake oil salesmen telling us that they have the wonder cure to fix the political system.
After all, we’ve had over three years of ‘new politics’ now, but what exactly has that meant? And how many of those who wanted such change have been happy with what has transpired?
It has not been the least bit ironic to hear the current cries for strong government from those who despaired at the diktat-style of the last Fine Gael-Labour coalition, led by the cabal of the Economic Management Council.
The point is that change rarely materialises into the vision imagined by those championing its necessity. If anything, the optimism engendered by change only serves to increase the level of disillusionment when it inevitably fails to deliver on its promises.
Did Barack Obama realise the change he believed in? ‘Yes, we can’ was another campaign slogan of his, but, after eight years in the White House, how many Democrat voters would agree that yes, he did. To what extent did America really change under Obama’s watch? And if it did, how much of this could be contributed to his presidency?
It is difficult to have faith in change as a political slogan because it is the lazy response to what are often complex societal problems.
‘What’s wrong with Ireland?’ you may ask a TD. ‘I don’t know’, could be the response, ‘but if we change things it’ll be a lot better’.
Change is a handy message to compensate for the incompetence of those who don’t know why the system went wrong in the first place. It is far easier to claim that things would be better if only we had a different set of rules in place.
In this way, change dodges the bullet. It lets people off the hook. It is to claim that it is no one’s fault if politicians are corrupt or our economy crashes. It is much easier to blame the system.
But change is not a panacea. The problem with change is that it concerns moving away from a system that when proposed was meant to remedy a previous flaw. And no doubt the proposed new system will, in the future, pose more unforeseen problems that will require even more change.
In this way we can get too preoccupied with change, which eventually becomes an end in itself. In other words, change for change’s sake.
In the wider political world, change, or institutional reform, is a common theme of those who believe the political system is failing. At previous summer schools, and no doubt at this year’s set, radical ideas will be put forward for change. They will be sold with the message that Ireland could be great, if only we had change.
But this perpetuates the notion that no-one is responsible for poor politics, and that it is more a product of poor institutions. Apologies for the cliched language, but a bad workman blames his tools.
The Italian political system is a classic case in mind. In the 1990s, the corruption that was endemic in Italian society came to a head with the revelations from a judicial investigation that identified Italy as a Tangentopoli, literally meaning ‘Bribesville’.
One of the root causes of the corruption was claimed to be the voting system, and so a new method of choosing the country’s politicians was devised. At the first set of parliamentary elections held under the new system that was supposed to promote clean politics, who was elected to government? None other than Silvio Berlusconi, hardly an ideal model on which to carve out a corruption-free regime.
Although there has been no Irish-style Tangentopoli on the Italian scale, reform of the electoral laws is a favourite topic of those looking to change Irish politics, particularly at summer schools.
Those advocating such a reform operate under the misguided assumption that the electoral system is responsible for the mismanagement of our economy, for an apparently poor quality of parliamentarians, and for a subversive parish pump politics.
Quite a lot to blame on the single transferable vote. If only it was that simple. Contrary to some opinion, there is little to no evidence to support the theory that a change to a new set of electoral rules would fix our politics. It might actually do worse, and create a whole raft of new problems – an Irish Berlusconi?
This is why we should be wary of change and the prophets preaching this message. They are selling the illusion that there is a Utopian ideal to which we can strive.
But the reality is that there will always be flaws in our politics; there will always be some corruption. The freedom of choice in a democracy has the consequence that there will always be some who make the wrong choice.
And so we need to forget about change as an objective to achieve unattainable goals. Because there will never be a Utopia. There will never be a time when we believe that change is not necessary. Those addicted to change are like the pet hamster running on his wheel in the mistaken belief that progress is being made. The hamster could get just as far by standing still.
This is why it would be so refreshing to hear a politician speak at MacGill next month on the themes of ‘Change we can’t believe in’ and ‘No, we can’t/ won’t’.
How about having some faith in the institutions that have given us one of the world’s oldest and most stable of democracies.
Why would you want to change that?
Dr Liam Weeks is a lecturer in the Department of Government and Politics at UCC
Source: Read Full Article
Home » Analysis & Comment » Liam Weeks: 'We will never live in utopia, so why change things just for change's sake? Answers on a postcard…'
Liam Weeks: 'We will never live in utopia, so why change things just for change's sake? Answers on a postcard…'
This is the time of year for reflection. The summer has finally arrived, and the Dail will be in recess soon. Many of its circle, both politicians and political correspondents alike, will be decamping to various summer schools to discuss the state of the nation.
Apart from late-night imbibing in local hostelries, the common theme of these schools tends to be talk of change, and plenty of it. To borrow a slogan from Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, change we can believe in.
The summer schools run on the idea that much is wrong with the nation, and that change is needed to improve matters. To this end, they bring together the great and good from the political world to tell those present what is necessary to make Ireland a better place.
Please log in or register with Independent.ie for free access to this article.
Log In
New to Independent.ie? Create an account
At the most high-profile of these annual gatherings, the MacGill Summer School in the picturesque town of Glenties in Co Donegal, the theme this year is ‘Can the centre hold? Radical new thinking needed’. Ignoring the paradoxical dilemma posed by the request for a radical centre (is it possible to be both?), the topics up for discussion include the rather long-winded: ‘Dogged by populism and growing disillusionment, if liberal democracy is to be saved new social, economic and political thinking is urgently required’; ‘The future of Ireland: fresh thinking is needed to bring North and South closer together to draw up a plan for the future’; and, the more succinct, ‘How to achieve a new and agreed Ireland and what form might it take?’
More change up for discussion then, including a demand for both new and fresh thinking, whatever the difference is between them.
But my own contribution in this time of reflection is to argue that the kind of change we should have is no more discussion of change.
Let’s stop saying that we need to change our politics. No more of the snake oil salesmen telling us that they have the wonder cure to fix the political system.
After all, we’ve had over three years of ‘new politics’ now, but what exactly has that meant? And how many of those who wanted such change have been happy with what has transpired?
It has not been the least bit ironic to hear the current cries for strong government from those who despaired at the diktat-style of the last Fine Gael-Labour coalition, led by the cabal of the Economic Management Council.
The point is that change rarely materialises into the vision imagined by those championing its necessity. If anything, the optimism engendered by change only serves to increase the level of disillusionment when it inevitably fails to deliver on its promises.
Did Barack Obama realise the change he believed in? ‘Yes, we can’ was another campaign slogan of his, but, after eight years in the White House, how many Democrat voters would agree that yes, he did. To what extent did America really change under Obama’s watch? And if it did, how much of this could be contributed to his presidency?
It is difficult to have faith in change as a political slogan because it is the lazy response to what are often complex societal problems.
‘What’s wrong with Ireland?’ you may ask a TD. ‘I don’t know’, could be the response, ‘but if we change things it’ll be a lot better’.
Change is a handy message to compensate for the incompetence of those who don’t know why the system went wrong in the first place. It is far easier to claim that things would be better if only we had a different set of rules in place.
In this way, change dodges the bullet. It lets people off the hook. It is to claim that it is no one’s fault if politicians are corrupt or our economy crashes. It is much easier to blame the system.
But change is not a panacea. The problem with change is that it concerns moving away from a system that when proposed was meant to remedy a previous flaw. And no doubt the proposed new system will, in the future, pose more unforeseen problems that will require even more change.
In this way we can get too preoccupied with change, which eventually becomes an end in itself. In other words, change for change’s sake.
In the wider political world, change, or institutional reform, is a common theme of those who believe the political system is failing. At previous summer schools, and no doubt at this year’s set, radical ideas will be put forward for change. They will be sold with the message that Ireland could be great, if only we had change.
But this perpetuates the notion that no-one is responsible for poor politics, and that it is more a product of poor institutions. Apologies for the cliched language, but a bad workman blames his tools.
The Italian political system is a classic case in mind. In the 1990s, the corruption that was endemic in Italian society came to a head with the revelations from a judicial investigation that identified Italy as a Tangentopoli, literally meaning ‘Bribesville’.
One of the root causes of the corruption was claimed to be the voting system, and so a new method of choosing the country’s politicians was devised. At the first set of parliamentary elections held under the new system that was supposed to promote clean politics, who was elected to government? None other than Silvio Berlusconi, hardly an ideal model on which to carve out a corruption-free regime.
Although there has been no Irish-style Tangentopoli on the Italian scale, reform of the electoral laws is a favourite topic of those looking to change Irish politics, particularly at summer schools.
Those advocating such a reform operate under the misguided assumption that the electoral system is responsible for the mismanagement of our economy, for an apparently poor quality of parliamentarians, and for a subversive parish pump politics.
Quite a lot to blame on the single transferable vote. If only it was that simple. Contrary to some opinion, there is little to no evidence to support the theory that a change to a new set of electoral rules would fix our politics. It might actually do worse, and create a whole raft of new problems – an Irish Berlusconi?
This is why we should be wary of change and the prophets preaching this message. They are selling the illusion that there is a Utopian ideal to which we can strive.
But the reality is that there will always be flaws in our politics; there will always be some corruption. The freedom of choice in a democracy has the consequence that there will always be some who make the wrong choice.
And so we need to forget about change as an objective to achieve unattainable goals. Because there will never be a Utopia. There will never be a time when we believe that change is not necessary. Those addicted to change are like the pet hamster running on his wheel in the mistaken belief that progress is being made. The hamster could get just as far by standing still.
This is why it would be so refreshing to hear a politician speak at MacGill next month on the themes of ‘Change we can’t believe in’ and ‘No, we can’t/ won’t’.
How about having some faith in the institutions that have given us one of the world’s oldest and most stable of democracies.
Why would you want to change that?
Dr Liam Weeks is a lecturer in the Department of Government and Politics at UCC
Source: Read Full Article