For four decades, the prevailing narrative of Irish politics has convinced the Labour Party and its supporters that it was only a matter of time before a left-wing party inherited the earth, writes John Waters.
This narrative not merely survived but was, oddly, bolstered by the implosion of actually-existing socialism in 1989.
Watching the collapse of the Berlin Wall on TV, we were inspired by this triumph of good over evil, but uniquely interpreted these events not as a victory of "right" over "left" but in a more woolly fashion that allowed us to create a minor imitation at home with the ideologies the other way around. A year later, Mary Robinson tapped into the atmosphere of excitement generated by the dismantling of the iron curtain by winning the presidency under a reddish flag, setting the scene for a resurgence of the Labour Party under Dick Spring. Thus began the finest hour of Irish leftism, which, being against the grain of history, could not be sustained.
It did, however, sustain the prevailing narrative, driven by a few high-profile commentators who insist on interpreting reality in accordance with their own desires. This is why our Labour Party is in such confusion. In the UK, Labour under Tony Blair managed to grasp the moment by dissociating itself from the dead hand of socialism, thereby entering the most vibrant phase in its history.
The conditions there were not significantly dissimilar to Ireland, but the disproportionate influence of a scattering of implacably reactionary left-wingers ensured that left-wing parties here were allowed to settle into the idea that their day would come again. In reality, we were moving into an era of prosperity and full employment, in which personal aspiration and attainment were to become the dominant values. The chorus of pseudo left-wing commentators, now themselves more prosperous and more fully employed, continued prating on about the redistribution of wealth, but mainly as a means of diverting moral scrutiny from their own drift away from the principles of their narrative.
The problem is not, as these commentators continue to insist, that nobody has succeeded in redefining the role of a left-wing party for the new society we have created. The "problem" is that, in the new society we have created, there is no possibility whatever of any kind of remotely left-wing analysis taking hold of the electoral imagination in the foreseeable future. This is a problem for left-wing parties only.
Nor is there any possibility of the Irish Labour Party replicating the achievement of New Labour in the UK. For one thing, the base of the party is too small to achieve any kind of breakthrough on its own. Moreover, the New Labour project is now nearing its end, having just entered a brief Indian summer by virtue of the failure of the Tories to define a new direction. Here, there is no future for leftist ideas, but at best a future for groupings marching under left-wing banners as extras in the new and as yet undeclared narrative of post-ideological politics. The Green Party has already sensed this and cashed in its chips. The Labour Party, however, has become too lazy even to think through its own position, and so remains in thrall to delusions of residual relevancy. It depends for its core support on a declining constituency which treats left-wing values as a badge of identity and a stick with which to beat the less virtuous.
Prosperity has made such stances both incongruous and unattractive. To the average man from Mars, it is bizarre that Labour appears set to again elect a blow-in as leader. Pat Rabbitte failed to succeed in his stated leadership objectives due to the ineluctability of reality and the ideological sclerosis of his party. Because so many commentators are like-minded, attention is rarely drawn to the way the traditional Labour element continues to maintain a stranglehold on the party's soul and conscience, rendering tautologous such a concept as "Old Labour". Only the blow-ins think this can be changed.
Pat Rabbitte was not so much elected leader as allowed to become leader and then observed from a distance by the jaded traditionalists desiring someone else to take responsibility for attempting to make their party relevant while they play to the gallery by nibbling at his bum. Their ideal situation was to be able to wash their hands of responsibility for renewal, while, being certain of positive press notices, reserving the right to undermine, on the basis of traditionalist "principles", any efforts of their leadership to effect real change. Rabbitte failed to effect the necessary revolution, not because he lacked will or bottle, but because his leadership, having been acquired by adverse possession, was not up to the task of turning the party inside out.
The election of Éamon Gilmore would represent a repetition of the pattern. Another outsider, he too will find himself at the mercy of Labour's incurable pathology of principled obscurantism. He will be chosen not because of his promises to rejuvenate the Irish left, but because, like his predecessor, he has not the slightest hope of succeeding.