Irish Presidential Controversies

David Norris has fallen victim to the ruthless
nature of Irish Presidential Elections

David Norris’ announcement that he would not proceed with his campaign to seek a Presidential nomination last week saw the Presidential election lose a potential charasmatic candidate. The achievements of Norris in the field of human rights and work for minorities is to be admired, however with the surfacing of the latest controversy in writing his letter defending his former partner was an act which was indefensible and his withdrawal at this stage seemed an inevitability. With the loss of Norris the Presidential campaign has lost a lot of its colour, but hopes still main that late comers may yet join the race for the Áras.

Rumours surfacing in recent days hint that Eurovision winner, Dana Rosemary Scallon will have another attempt at securing the post after her attempt in the previous campaign in 1997 and now Gay Byrne appears to be considering his options. Additionally Independent TD Finian McGrath has been hinting at a least one high profile candidate joining the race without any party ties, relying o support on Independent TDs for nomination. He first hinted at this during his appearance on Tonight with Vincent Browne hosted by Sam Smyth on Tuesday of last week and on RTÉ radio on Thursday. Hopefully this will materialise, as one feels that in David Norris’ absence the candidate line-up could do with an injection of life. Additionally Cork MEP Brian Crowley is seeking the candidature for Fianna Fáil should the party decide it is willing to risk another potential embarrassment at the polls, but Crowley may also face competition from Eamon Ó Cuiv for the position and Mary Hannafin. The possibility of Sinn Féin running a candidate also means interesting times may well lie ahead in the Presidential election.

However any potential candidates should bear in mind that Presidential campaigns are not the faint-hearted, already illustrated in 2011’s race. Dirty tricks in Presidential elections remain part of the course seen in previous campaigns but securing the post also does not shelter the incumbent President from negative media coverage or embroilment in scandal. This post will now look at some of the controversies associated with the first citizen of the state in recent history.

Cearbhaill Ó Dálaigh 1976

Cearbhaill Ó Dálaigh at his home in Co. Wicklow following
his resignation as President in October 1976

Cearbhaill Ó Dálaigh took office in 1974 following the sudden death of Erskine Childers. Throughout his time as President, relations were uneasy with Liam Cosgrave’s Fine Gael/Labour coalition and matters came to a head in October 1976. With the persistent violence dominating Northern Ireland and the killing of British Ambassador Christopher Ewart-Biggs in an IRA landmine explosion the provious July, the Government sought to introduce the Emergency Powers Bill allowing for the detention of suspects without charge for seven days. This came also amid allegations of a ‘heavy gang’ operating in interrogations within the Gardaí.

Amid this climate Ó Dálaigh sought to refer the bill to the Supreme Court as he was perfectly entitled after taking the advice of the Council of the State. The Supreme Court approved of the Bill and this was followed by remarks from Minister for Defence, Patrick Donegan during an address at Columb Barracks in Mullingar, in which he branded the President as ‘a thundering disgrace.’ Fianna Fáil immediately demanded Donegan’s dismissal however Donegan merely issued an apology and following the defeat of Fianna Fáil’s resignation motion in the Dáil, Ó Dálaigh unsatisfied with the apology and the Taoiseach half-hearted response announced his resignation on the day following the Dáil vote. Ó Dálaigh was reported in the Irish Times as stating he was resigning ‘to assert publicly his integrity and independence and to protect the dignity and independence of the Presidency as an institution.’ He also noted ‘the words “thundering disgrace” ... had been followed by the sentence: “The fact is, the Army must stand behind the State.” Could this sentence be construed ... otherwise than as an insinuation that the resident did not stand behind the State?’

The whole affair did serious damage to the Coalition Governments reputation before the General Election which came in June of 197. However an incident of equally acrimony would also befall the man who would replace Ó Dálaigh as President.

Patrick Hillery 1979

Patrick Hillery

1979 saw the personal life of President Patrick Hillery became the issue of rumour and controversy. Rumours surrounding Hillery’s marriage surfaced for and intensified as the visit of Pope John Paul II to Ireland approached in September 1979. It was rumoured that Hillery had an affair with a Belgian woman during his time in Brussels as Ireland’s EEC Commissioner. Gossip followed, and rumours that the President would resign. However these were rumours that were only prominent in media and political circles and many of the public were not aware of the allegations. Hillery sought to clarify the matter by calling a meeting with the three editors of the biggest national newspapers, the Irish Times, Irish Independent and Irish Press and the head of news at RTÉ on October 3, 1979 and categorically stated that ‘there is absolutely no foundation whatever for such rumours. I am not resigning.’

Questions remain at how such baseless rumours emanated and many sources have since been suggested. T.P O’Mahony referred in his biography of Jack Lynch, to differing suggestions of where the scandal originated. One rumoured source was a KGB plot to discredit the Poe on his visit to Ireland. A further suggestion was a British Secret Service plot as part of their Dirty Tricks War in Northern Ireland. It was believed the rumours were orchestrated by MI5 or MI6, angry at poor Irish security arrangements surrounding the death of Lord Louis Mountbatten due to an IRA bomb in Co. Sligo the previous August and now they were attempting to embarrass the Irish Government during the Pope’s visit.

However a more plausible suggestion comes from within Irish political circles and is cited as the reason in Hillery’s 2008 biography. By late 1979 pressure was intensifying within Fianna Fáil on Jack Lynch to resign as Taoiseach. Suggestions are that Charles Haughey was at the source of the rumours as part of his leadership ambitions. The alleged plan was to force the resignation of Hillery as President, leaving the door open for Jack Lynch to take the position following his resignation. This would then pave the way for Haughey to become Taoiseach.Whatever the truth of the matter this incident certainly indicates that the office of Presidency was not beyond sabotage of those with a ruthless thirst for power.

Brian Lenihan with Fianna Fáil colleague Charles J. Haughey

Brian Lenihan 1990
The Presidential election serves as a further example of the unforgiving nature of these campaigns. Brian Lenihan entered the campaign as the early favourite as the Fianna Fáil candidate. However a controversy emerged during the campaign that would lead to Mary Robinson becoming Ireland’s first female President. Issues surfaced surrounding a phone call Lenihan had made following the defeat of Garret Fitzgerald’s Fine Gael/Labour coalition Government in the January 1982 in a Dáil budget vote.


Reports now resurfaced that Lenihan had made a phone call to President Patrick Hillery in an effort to persuade him to not dissolve the Dáil, Charles Haughey and Fianna Fáil could form a new government without the need for an election. It was an allegation Lenihan was pressurised on, which he categorically denied in several media appearances. However on October 24, the Irish Times lead with the headline ‘Lenihan did make call to President he now denies.’ The article confirmed this following the agreement of a UCD post-graduate student who had carried out a taped interview with Lenihan in May 1990 in which he admitted he had made such calls. Serious credibility issues now surrounded Lenihan and his campaign, as he now explained that ‘on mature recollection’ his belief his comments to the student were mistaken.


Following the tabling of a motion of no confidence in the 1990 Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrat Government due to the issue, and threats from the PDs to pull out of government, Taoiseach Charles Haughey proceeded to dismiss Lenihan as Minister for Defence following his refusal to resign. Added to this public embarrassment, Fianna Fáil TD Pádraig Flynn’s derogatory comments about Mary Robinson hindered Lenihan’s cause who was however subsequently defeated narrowly. In Lenihan’s Dictionary of Irish Biography entry Lawrence William White comments that ‘Lenihan subsequently claimed that he had no memory of the interview with the student, at the time of which he was in a confused state of mind while under heavy medication for his liver condition and related medical complications.’

James Connolly's Participation in the 1916 Rising

James Connolly in 1911

As it is Easter and the ninety-fifth anniversary of the 1916 Rising, I thought it a good time to do a blog post on the subject. One of the patriots who died subsequent to the Rising was James Connolly. He has had a multitude of literature dedicated to him, however much of this has focused on Connolly’s Nationalism. Connolly was an ardent Socialist first and foremost and this is clearly seen in Labour in Irish History by Connolly which was published in 1910.

We studied this for one of our modules this year and in it Connolly puts his own Marxist interpretation on Irish history. He emphasises the importance of the property question in Irish history, as the reason behind Irish subjection in the past whether that be from English property interests in Ireland or that of the Irish capitalist class. Secondly, Connolly asserts that it is the Irish working class are the sole inheritors of the fight for Irish freedom, due to the ‘incorruptible’ nature of that class as opposed to the middle class, who are tied with ‘a thousand economic strings in the shape of investments binding them to English capitalism as ever against every sentimental or historic attachment drawing them toward Irish patriotism.’ Connolly takes no liberties in castigating revered Irish patriots from Daniel O’Connell to Henry Grattan whom Connolly views as not defending the interests of the most impoverished in Irish society. Connolly expressed his vehement opposition to a united class struggle which he believed had always worked against the interests of the Irish working class. In view of these opinions in 1910, I thought it was interesting to see what propelled Connolly from such an hard-line Socialist to part-taking in the Nationalist insurrection in 1916 allied with the other Proclamation signatories, the focus of whom was solely national and certainly not Socialist. This post will briefly examine what propelled Connolly into a cross-class alliance in 1916.

The most fundamental event which completely altered Connolly’s political outlook was the outbreak of the First Word War in 1914. Connolly’s internationalist outlook was destroyed by the onset of workers fighting against each other and the collapse of the united anti-war outlook of the Second International, as national parties drifted towards supporting their respective nation’s stances. Connolly believed that workers ‘had volunteered to fight for an Empire that batoned them and for the class that degraded and robbed them.’ Connolly’s view of a working class revolution was fast receding but the war saw an increased militancy in Connolly’s attitude also. The political methods of peace-time we now seen as fruitless especially in light of the Second International’s collapse, and he believed an insurrection was  now a necessity due to a number of developments. Connolly looked to form an alliance with Irish Republicans to carry out this rebellion with his recently formed Irish Citizen Army (ICA), due to his despondency with the inability to carry out a working class minority revolution due to the weak and divided nature of the class in war time. He saw as disastrous the possible consequences of the war concluding with Ireland still intimately linked to Britain after the service of Irishmen, Nationalist and Unionist, in the British Army. It would lead to the utter relegation of Irish Nationalism as a tradition to whom he was now looking to forge an alliance.  As well as this partition was now clearly on the table in a possible Home Rule arrangement after 1914, with John Redmond’s agreement with the British government and the service of the Ulster Volunteer Force on the Western Front. Such an arrangement would formally cement the sectarian division in Ireland which Connolly so utterly despised. Additionally Connolly felt it necessary to carry out an insurrection during the war when British forces strength would not be solely focused on Ireland.

The remnants of the GPO following Easter week in 1916

Kieran Allen has noted Connolly’s anxiousness to proceed with such an insurrection before the onset of conscription in Ireland which Connolly felt would bind Ireland to the Empire and militarise society. Allen criticises Connolly lack of faith in the development of possible mass working class opposition, by focusing on agitation coming solely from the ICA and the Irish Volunteers with whom Connolly had built an alliance in the run up to the 1916 Rising. Therefore Connolly’s pessimistic outlook led him to move beyond the narrow boundaries he had set on a revolution in Labour in Irish History just six years previously.

           

Connolly was focused on short term goals during the First World War and with the collapse of International organised Socialism Connolly looked to Ireland internally for military action. The weak state of the working class led to his alliance with those IRB leaders in the Irish Volunteers as Connolly suspended his desire for a Socialist Revolution in 1916. He moved to first see the collapse of British capitalist rule in Ireland as a preliminary step to the future development of Socialism in Ireland possibly in alliance with Republicans. Connolly had clearly defined goals going into the GPO in April 1916 and was not contemplating a blood sacrifice like Pádraig Pearse, but as we know circumstances conspired against the rebel leaders.

Debates about the merits of the Rising are highly divisive, seen vividly in the media reaction to the decision to commemorate the Rising in 2006, but there can be no doubt that despite the alterations to his position expressed in Labour in Irish History, Connolly held dear to his Socialist principles in participating in the Easter Rising in 1916.

General Election 2011 and the Left

Richard Boyd Barrett and Joe Higgins of the Left Wing Alliance, both elected in the General Election

The central theme that dominated this election was that of change. Change of the parties in power, change in the way the Dáil works and more political change besides.  But in the cold light of day was there any substantial change? I would argue no. During the election campaign there was a focus on the opportunities for the left to make gains.  Before the election campaign much of this focus primarily fell on the Labour Party and their incredible rise in popularity. Before Christmas a number of polls pointed to the rise in Sinn Féin. I looked at this in my blog and some polls indicated Sinn Féin outpolling Fianna Fáil. This was followed up by the establishment of the Left Wing Alliance of the Socialist Party, People Before Profit and left wing politicians. The anticipation was that these parties would benefit from the inevitable decline in Fianna Fáil support.

           

The parties in government have changed following the election but the approach to the mess we find ourselves in has not. The election of Fine Gael to the Dáil has seen power move to a further right of centre party than Fianna Fáil. As the election campaign developed the left vote faded away to such an extent that at one stage a Fine Gael overall majority looked like a distinct possibility. There may have been many different factors behind this and parties to the left of Labour did make major gains. However a hard left (Sinn Féin, Socialist Party, People Before Profit, Workers' Party) figure of 12.2% is hardly earth shattering. You have to wonder will the left ever make a breakthrough in Ireland if it can’t be done at the time of the biggest collapse of international capitalism since the Great Depression of the late 1920s. This has been the historic trend of the left in Ireland. There is a distinct inability to break down the old Civil War divide that has dominated the ninty years of the state’s existence despite the fact that the ideological differences of Fine Fáil and Fine Gael today are minimal. Both are determined to push through with the IMF/EU bailout, and despite the bravado of renegotiating the deal, on its own Ireland’s influence and clout is neglible. It is on bailout issue however which also acted as a block to major progress of left wing candidates. Sinn Féin, and the Left Wing Alliance outlined their intention to rescind on the IMF/EU deal and opposition refutes of the apocalyptic consequences of such a move installed fear into many voters who may have been inclined towards the left wing parties.

Additionally Labour’s campaign in reality was a poor one. The campaign focus of making Eamon Gilmore Taoiseach fell on its face and by the end of the campaign the ‘Gilmore for Taoiseach’ posters were more of an embarrassment to the party than anything else.’ As well as this  Gilmore’s jibes describing European Central Bank chief Jean Claude Trichet as ‘a mere civil servant’ after his denial that Ireland could renegotiate the bailout deal and the mantra of ‘Frankfurt’s Way or Labour’s Way’ didn’t resonate with the public. In spite of all this in any case Labour shouldn’t really have a problem negotiating a deal with Fine Gael as they have a lot more in common with them then any party further left on the spectrum. Vincent Browne indicated this today in his article in the Irish Times:

Both are agreed it is best to renegotiate the EU-IMF deal to reduce the debt burden and to decrease the interest rate. Both are convinced there is no option ultimately but to defer to the diktats of the ECB and EU Commission even if this means compensating bondholders of the banks not covered by the guarantee.

Labour is now again about to enter another coalition and, it is certain, the outcome will be the same. No alteration to the structure of society, aside from a widening of inequality. Yes a few reforms that, essentially, won’t change much.

Hardly anything different from what could happen were Fine Gael to be in office on its own, with the support of a few capitalist cheerleaders.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0302/1224291142810.html

 In reality a lot of Fianna Fáil votes went straight to Fine Gael and 2011 turned out to be an Election which failed which to live up to the expectations of the left.

Since the state was founded left wing parties have failed to make a mark. The exception to this was in the last recession of the 1980s. Throughout the decade the Workers’ Part was a presence in Irish politics until the break with Democratic Left and later their infiltration into Labour. It seems remarkable to look at the success The Workers’ Party managed in the 1980s with their hard left policies, and even Soviet associations that they managed to increase their vote throughout the decade to their highpoint of 7 seats and 5% in the 1989 General Election. This rise comprised of mainly Dublin seats but incorporated TDs from rural constituencies as well such a Joe Sherlock in East Cork.

Jonathan O'Brien of Sinn Féin celebrates his election in Cork North Central

Compare the Workers’ Party result to the hardest left party in Ireland today, the Socialist Party who attained 2 seats including their leader Joe Higgins and Dublin councillor Clare Daly with 1.2% of 1^st preferences. Sinn Féin was one of the elections success stories, winning 14 seats but their percentage increase was only 3%.

Left wing parties did attain major gains in this election, in a climate of real public anger. The Irish electorate has had an aversion to left wing parties in the past but now with Fianna Fáil starting their rebuilding process and the inevitable decrease of popularity in store for Fine Gael and Labour with the austerity measures that will continue to be implemented, the 2011 General Election may be a base for the left in Ireland to build from.

Mapping Freedom

There are many interesting points made by Edward L. Ayers in his article Mapping Freedom.  He outlines the benefits of the use of maps and graphics in the writing of history. He argues that history takes place in space whether it is in a historical building or on a battlefield, therefore there should be a justification for using maps and graphics as a means of presenting the relationship between space and time.

Ayers uses the example of the movements of African American populations during and after the American Civil War and spatially represents the marriages of African Americans in Virginia during the Civil War through the use of maps. His animated map showing population movements of African American between 1810 and 1970 vividly illustrate the increased migration in the post emancipation period. As they say a picture paints a thousand words and I would agree that this can also be applied to writing history. The use of graphs or maps can have the ability to illuminate an article which may be difficult to comprehend. I found this in reading a book on the Battle of Kursk which used 3D maps recreating the terrain and movements of the Russian and German armies, illustrating the events in a manner which written accounts could not.

In an Irish context the use of maps can be useful in the illustration of events such as the plantations. The map below from irelandstory.com depicts the change in land ownership in Ireland during the Cromwellian Plantation and serves as an example of the enacting of history in space.

 Ayers uses the analogy of weather maps to justify the use of maps for history. He describes how we use weather maps to retrospectively depict and explain the complex processes occurring in a weather system. Similarly ‘we can comprehend the historical weather, tracing where the currents led, how the storms brewed, and how the unpredictable somehow came to pass.’

The visual representation of history as a time landscape with important events represented by mountains and uneventful times by flat valleys was an interesting analogy. Additionally these significant historical events cannot be depicted as occurring in a straight line from start to finish. For example it would be inaccurate to present the events of Easter 1916 to the coming to power of Cumann na nGaedheal as a simple capitulation of British control in Ireland. All factors need to be considered. As Ayers says ‘history never travels as the bird flies; history walks across a varied and landscape of time.’



Ethnic Divisions in Bosnia in 1991



One of the courses I did in second year history in which I found maps to be an essential aid was the Balkans; World War I to Kosovo. I was studying the extremely complicated break-up of the Yugoslav Federation. This conflict’s division went well beyond national borders but was based on vicious ethnic divisions. The development of the war in certain ethnic areas of different countries was difficult to form a clear picture of. This was increasingly relevant in the bitterly divided Bosnia.  The use of maps depicting the divisions was essential in studying the conflict.

Ayers article had many interesting points and there is no doubting the benefits of the use of maps and graphics in the representation of history. Their use can make historical events and trends far more illuminating to readers of history.

Webs of Significance

Drew VandeCreek article Webs of Significance outlines the need for professional historians to engage with the development of digital libraries on the internet, or risk historians becoming increasingly irrelevant to popular historical discourse. He uses the Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project as an ideal example of the types of interactive work historians need to become involved in.

VandeCreek comments that for the person with an interest I history as a hobby or ‘lifelong learners’ the availability of primary source documents on the internet is not enough. People also need a proper historical context and interpretation to get the most out of these sources. He says that while librarians can provide access to such materials it is historians that can provide ‘the perceptions and debates unique to their discipline.’

The Lincoln project provides access to primary documents and is unique in its collection image, map, sound and video sources too. As well as this the website also provides a biographical context in which to place the early phase of Lincoln’s life and a number of key historical themes around which debate range on Lincoln. This provides the context that VandeCreek calls for in other projects.

The benefits of collaboration of different disciplines that Patrick Manning advocated in his article Digital World History are also evident in the Lincoln project. The project saw the contributions of historians interested in different aspects of the historical experience, whether social, diplomatic or political history. The Lincoln project provides a ‘variety of interpretations of historical materials’ and allows people ‘to weigh the available evidence in order to assess their persuasive power.’

The issue of access is identified by VandeCreek as an impediment to lifelong learners with digital sources. ‘Unlike enrolled students, these individuals and groups usually lack any recourse to instruction or other forms of historical expertise that may inform their exploration of a digital library.’ This situation is similar to the position I was in before taking this course. There was numerous useful digital resources available to me which I was unaware of, but now I use tools such as Evernote and Google Alerts for my research.        

VandeCreek also outlines the possible consequences of the non-involvement of historians in the development of digital libraries. With huge amounts of other material available, people will readily consult history websites ‘without scholars queries, interpretations, and debates.’ VandeCreek is very critical of the history articles of websites such as About.com, many of which he says do not consult any primary sources.

I looked up an article on the 1916 Rising to get an impression of About.com articles. I could see VandeCreek’s reservations. The article was written by a journalist and has no citations or footnotes of any kind, therefore having no evidence to back up the facts in his account.

To counteract this, VandeCreek feels it is essential that historians engage with modern forms of scholarship. This is needed in an Irish context also. When one searches on an issue such as the 1916 Rising for example, many of the Google results page come from republican websites, which obviously would not be applying the standards of professional historians. Quoting VandeCreek historians are now obliged ‘to step forward and share their ideas and interpretations with the public.’

Digital World History: An Agenda

Patrick Manning’s article Digital World History: An Agenda argues that the study of history on a global scale needs the cross disciplinary cooperation of researchers and this can be aided by the advance of digital technology. This cooperation can involve different areas of history or other social sciences and it results in better results when academics coordinate their work in such a manner. He advocates such an approach throughout the article, as a new modern way of research, as well as looking at more complex historical patterns and seeking new data rather than developing on old data.

                   

At the beginning of the article Manning comments on the recent ‘extraordinary expansion in knowledge about the past.’ He comments that ‘the new knowledge, exciting but always incomplete, fueled a search for still more knowledge.’ The huge number of history books being released exemplifies the vast array of knowledge there is.  Over Christams the vast array of books I saw on sale dealt with topics such as De Valera and his republicanism to a recent controversial release asserting that he was a British spy! The internet has been  a vital component in this expansion of knowledge. People can now access a vast archive of historical knowledge at the click of a mouse. I found during my time undergrad, when studying medieval Irish history which had become hazy from secondary school I could quickly refresh my memory by looking up the internet. Despite all its critics I found Wikipedia very useful for such purposes, eliminating the need to search for my old secondary school book hidden somewhere in the attic at home.

           

This expansion of knowledge can also be applied to the media today. People can now stay informed with current events on a global scale, keeping in touch with issues such as the current independence referendum in Southern Sudan. With such a vast array of now accessible, Manning asserts that ‘the work of the historian is to assemble and interpret this multidimensional knowledge.’

Manning also comments on analytical and conceptual problems associated with world history. He outlines the need to take account of the perspectives of different actors, in analysing world history and the need for a flexibility of scale. Balancing local and global scales, short and long term time spans. For example one cannot just look at the Troubles in Northern Ireland starting in 1969. There is a necessity to look at longer time scales. Additionally global perspectives can differ significantly from local ones. This was evident in the same period in the money the IRA received from the Noraid group, funded by Irish-Americans with a completely romanticised revolutionary view on the IRA campaign of violence.

Manning also expresses the view that history at the world scale is still unfamiliar. ‘Neither researchers nor readers are yet comfortable with interpreting the global past, so the analysis lags far beyond the accumulation of new information’. This was interesting in terms of low profile countries suddenly coming to the forefront in world headlines. Nobody can know or be expert in the history of every place in the world no matter what technology exists, and this can lead to difficulties when reporting from such areas. A prominent example of such a phenomenon came in the Yugoslav War in the early 1990s. Yugoslavia shot into world headlines as Croatia and Slovenia seceded, and the vicious civil war broke out in Bosnia. Misha Glenny in his history of the Balkans, criticised the stereotypes and generalizations of a continual violent people involved in an unsolvable war that emanated from Western media outlets.

           

There were other parts of Manning’s article which I found rather difficult to comprehend, such as when he was differentiating between analog and digital technologies. He also outlines the many benefits of digital technology in conducting global research and the connections between both digital technology and world history’s growth. He notes the need to write history to an audience beyond national frontiers. This approach is evident in the BBC news website which has a separate websites for UK and global readers.

           

Digital technology’s ability to aid access to a range of interpretations and multidimensional analysis of world history is an element which Manning really values. It is an approach that makes a lot a sense to me. During my Arts degree I did Geography as my second subject and there was so much overlapping of the topics covered in both subjects, whether it is issues of demographic history or migration. The two disciplines have different approaches to topics but cooperation between disciplines should lead to what Manning calls an ‘improved world-historical interpretation.’