Should you decide to read the full text of the Fine Gael-Fianna Fail agreement concluded this week, the first thing that will occur to you is how banal and insubstantial the document’s policy commitments are. For example, it promises that the next government will “significantly increase and expedite the delivery of social housing units, remove barriers to private housing supply and initiate an affordable housing scheme”.
But these are policy goals rather than policies. The document leaves us in the dark as to quite how the next government is supposed to achieve these goals. The agreement also undertakes to “protect the family home and introduce additional longterm solutions for mortgage arrears cases”. And that’s it. That’s the entirety of what the document has to say about a key area of public policy: insubstantial or what?
This criticism may miss the essential purpose of the document: to provide a documentary fig leaf behind which Fianna Fail may sustain its mortal political enemy, Fine Gael, in government. Having committed itself to removing FG from government, FF has found itself on the horns of a dilemma since the electorate voted in February, having been confronted with the choice of supporting FG in government or triggering an immediate general election.
As his party didn’t want an early election for which it would have been blamed (and would thus have probably lost), Micheál Martin’s only choice was between supporting FG from the government benches, as a full partner in government, or from the opposition benches, as a semi-detached partner outside it.
The fascinating thing is that Mr Martin chose to remain in opposition. It’s the first time in the state’s history that a party has turned down such a clear opportunity to join government. And not only did Mr Martin turn down a chance for his party to be in government, he turned down the personal opportunity to be taoiseach.
Advertisement
That decision may have been motivated, in part, by party management considerations. While Fianna Fail’s leadership might have benefited personally from securing office, the same could not be said for all of the party’s TDs, senators, councillors and foot soldiers.
It would have been difficult for the FF high command to persuade the party to enter into full participation in government with FG, but I don’t think that it would have been that serious an obstacle had Mr Martin and those around him really wanted to get back into government.
I therefore think that Mr Martin’s rejection of government office must have had other, more substantial, reasons. The simplest of these reasons is that, of late, being in government here has been electorally toxic.
The Fianna Fail/Green Party coalition elected in 2007 had lost the support of 27 per cent of the electorate by the following election. By polling day this February, the Fine Gael/Labour Party government elected in 2011 had lost the support of 23 per cent of voters. These are huge losses.
It may be argued that they took place in the exceptional difficult circumstances of a post-bubble economic crash. Against that, it can be argued that similar seismic shifts have been taking place in countries across Europe.
Advertisement
What this means is that, for Mr Martin, the half-loaf of “partnership government” that Enda Kenny offered may have been less attractive than no loaf at all. The Fianna Fail leader may also think that his party needs more time to recover from the electoral walloping it received in 2011. His party made big gains in the recent general election. But its performance was poor, relative to the support levels that it used to enjoy.
FF’s 24 per cent share of the first preference vote was its second-worst in history. The party’s support base is reminiscent of the readership of the defunct Irish Press: too old, too male, too rural and too conservative. So Mr Martin will hope that being in opposition during the term of the coming Fine Gael-led government will give his party the chance to develop young, female candidates in our cities and large towns.
He will also hope that his party gains support by keeping FG on a tight political leash. Political parties of all hues generally see an opinion poll bounce in the immediate aftermath of their conferences when they benefit from saturation media coverage. Mr Martin will hope that his party will benefit from a never-ending series of high-profile tussles with FG over what FF may (or may not) permit it to do.
In a different context, Gerry Adams once promised a Stormont “battle a day” on issues such as equality and human rights. Mr Kenny, and his successor as Fine Gael leader, will have to accept the prospect that they will face a battle a day from Mr Martin. The key question, however, is whether Mr Martin and his party will benefit politically from this stance.
The evidence from history is not encouraging. Mr Martin is following the precedent set by Alan Dukes when he led FG. Under the Tallaght Strategy his party tolerated an FF minority government led by Charles Haughey, in the national interest. But Mr Dukes’s parliamentary toleration was portrayed by many as weakness.
Advertisement
His main rival on the opposition benches, Labour’s Dick Spring, was portrayed as “the real leader of the opposition”. Shortly afterwards Mr Spring led his party to triumphant success in the 1992 general election and Alan Dukes ended up being the first FG leader in decades not to be elected taoiseach.
The situation today isn’t a perfect analogy. At 67, Gerry Adams must be on his final political lap. And his embarrassing tweet this week was not so much a case of tiocfaidh ár lá as tiocfaidh ár daw. His party would benefit if he retired upstairs to an honorary role and let Mary Lou McDonald lead Sinn Fein.
Under those circumstances, don’t be surprised if we see a re-run of the Tallaght Strategy with Mr Martin playing the role of the earnest but weak leader of the opposition and Ms McDonald portrayed as the real leader of the opposition.
@CormacLucey