Witnessing
the somersaults Gerry Adams is putting the membership
of SF through to get them to accept and take responsibility
for the writ of the PSNI in the northeast of Ireland
—all in aid of gaining admittance to a will
of a wisp mockney parliament at Stormont—
got me thinking about the Left and the Gods that
failed us once they came anywhere near the vicinity
of real power. Sadly, the history of progressive
political movements the world over are littered
with such beings. Yet far from analyzing why the
Left has had more than its share of Quislings,
we tend to shrug our shoulders and continue to
meander down much the same road without a thought
to past disappointments.
Only last week we had the pitiful spectacle of
the once much respected Sandinista General, Daniel
Ortega, instructing his fellow Sandinistas who
sit in the Nicaraguan Parliament to vote to outlaw
article 165, which had been untouched since the
19th century, and allowed for therapeutic abortion.
His argument for doing so (off the record) was
that there was a Presidential election due (in
which he is a candidate) and if the Sandinistas
did not do the Catholic Church's bidding over
this issue, come the ballot he would find himself
up against not only the Right, but also the Catholic
Church.
Perhaps.
But despite Ortega cringing before reaction and
disposing of a woman's right to choose as if it
were a dirty handkerchief, it seems to have had
little impact on the head of the Catholic Church
in Nicaragua, Cardinal Obando y Bravo, who continued
to support the candidate of the Right and advised
his flock to do likewise. Indeed, by this act
alone the hopeful El Presidente must be suffering
from a bout of amnesia; throughout the Sandinistas'
war against the US backed Somoza dynasty, in which
Senor Ortega played an important role, the Official
Catholic Church stood four square with the dictatorship.
To
the south of Nicaragua, Lula has just been re-elected
President of Brazil, despite many on the Left
having deserted his cause due to scandals over
back handers and allegations of corruption. If
anything, for Lula to become mired in scandals
of this type has been one of the bitterest pills
many Leftists have had to swallow, as they felt
he and his Workers Party offered a real alternative
to Neo-Conservative economics, and right-wing
Social Democracy. The WP seemed to be the prototype
for a new kind of politics, which was inclusive
and built from the ground up. Yet almost as soon
as Lula entered the Presidential Palace he put
into practice the same old economic policies that
benefited the wealthy at the expense of the economically
poor. The same type of bag-men, brown envelopes
in hand, appear to have been lining up at the
side door of President Lula's office, much as
they did when his predecessor was in power. True,
Lula threw a few morsels to the least well off
economically —and they are not to be scoffed
at— but, far from breaking the mould, it
was more of the same. If Lula were to have been
defeated by the Right in the recent Presidential
Elections, there would have been very little to
show for his five years as President, as few lasting
improvements in Heath Care, Social Services, House
Building etc have been made during his period
in office. This lack of any positive legacy is
a common characteristic of these Leftist gods
that failed.
Incidentally,
if there is one common trait between the behaviour
of Gerry Adams, Daniel Ortega and Luiz Inácio
Lula da Silva, it is longevity, as they have all
been at the head of their respective party for
over two decades. During these years they have
all gradually come to believe that if they cut
and trim the politics that brought them to prominence
in the first place, it will in some way make them
more attractive to the section of the electorate
that opposed them on their way up, and by so doing
allow them to maintain power by warding off attacks
from the Right or the political and economic establishment.
Undoubtedly
some truth in this —the votes cast speak
for themselves. The flaw in this argument as far
as the Left is concerned is surely, if these men
are prepared to trim their policies to suit their
political opponents —and do so against the
wishes of the majority of their party's membership—
what makes them stand time and again for public
office? It cannot be the ideals they held as young
men when they first became politically active,
as they have cut and trimmed these to the bone
from the party program, or will ignore them when
they gain power.
If it is not to build a better future for those
from whence they came, what is their motivating
factor? It is very difficult not to conclude that
for these men, Office is all and in this they
are little different from those they oppose electorally
on the Right. Worse, in fact, as at least the
likes of Haughey, Thatcher, Regan and GW Bush
made no secret of the fact that they wished to
attain public office for reasons of personal ambition,
to enrich the middle classes, and act as catalysts
for the expansion of multi-national capital.
If
the above is true and these people are little
more than opportunists, then what does that say
about our judgement as political activists? Why
time and again do we not only give our support
at the ballot box to such people, but also work
our backsides off to try and get them elected?
Is there any explanation for this very uncomfortable
phenomenon, which can only be described as a betrayal,
or is such political degeneration of Leftist politicians
an integral part of the process of participating
at the highest level within bourgeois democracies?
Thus, anyone who stays at the helm of a progressive
political party that gains a degree of mass support
at the ballot box, will in time become corrupted
by the very system they set out to change or smash?
Human
nature being what it is, and the ego being such
a fragile thing susceptible to all sorts of enticements,
I feel the truth lies with the aforementioned
corrupting influence of the system. But this does
not make it an insoluble problem for the Left.
Longevity of leadership needs to be tackled. Almost
anyone, no matter how well intentioned when they
first come into office, if they stay at the top
of the greasy pole for more than four or five
years is doomed to end up reflecting in practice
all they hoped to change, not least because they
will be thinking about their next election and
cut their political cloth accordingly. Thus it
is imperative that when electing leaders of Leftist
(and Irish Republican) political parties a timeline
is set for their period in office; the same should
be true of all the senior party posts.
If
we look at socialist and Republican political
parties in the UK and Ireland, far too many of
them have had the same leadership core in place
for a decade or more. Indeed, one of the more
nonsensical facts to come out of the Irish Peace
Process is that the two largest parties within
the north of Ireland have had the same leaders
throughout much of the troubles. Is it any wonder
the public have little real confidence in these
people? I cannot think of a single other walk
of life where something similar would be tolerated.
If
the bourgeois parties wish to engage in such foolishness
that is for them. But the Left and Irish Republican
parties must get to grips with this problem and
set a timeline for office holders. We are always
being told these days that no one can expect a
job for life, not something I would normally agree
with. But as far as politicians are concerned,
it should become set in stone.
After
all, I cannot name a single politician who turned
out to be irreplaceable, not even amongst the
best of them. The finest examples of politicians
who felt they were irreplaceable were Eamon de
Valera and Winston Churchill, and many of those
they governed thought the same. Yet once they
left office, their nations were all the better
for them leaving, despite both men having served
their countries well in their time.
