OPINION:FRANÇOIS GUIZOT, the 19th-century French theorist of history, believed that the engine of progress in history was a "systematic antagonism" between rival sources of power.
The British political philosopher John Stuart Mill was influenced by these ideas and argued that tensions between the political parties of his day, the Tories and the Liberals, provided a valuable and creative environment from which productive politics could emerge. This was also one of the main justifications that Mill gave for freedom of expression.
For value to be derived from “systemic antagonism” and from a “contest of ideas”, one must first have the debate and not be fearful of having it. In recent public wrangling on the proposed – and now thankfully reversed – cuts to disability services, there has been a strand of commentary, both from the media and from within the political system, that has sought to censure those politicians who, like myself, entered into vigorous public debate on the matter.
The motivating impulse for such censure has been that such debate is harmful to “the stability of the Government”.
Stability is important but ought not to be an end in itself. It ought not to be to the exclusion of either Government party failing to defend or assert its own values and ideals. There are matters here worth fighting over, and sacrificing the debate about those values on the altar of “government stability” would be to betray my duty and the duty of all Oireachtas members, to the electorate.
Politics is a contest of power and values: expecting it to be clean or calm at all times is naive. Trying to silence that contest for the sake of stability is to risk ending up with the kind of “consensus thinking” that got us into our present difficulties.
The difference of view last week, such as it was, was a difference worth having. A core part of Labour values, the values I believe in, is the protection of government services to those of our fellow citizens most in need of them.
A day may come where we may need to look at cutting such services, but it should only come after we have exhausted areas for reform such as the price we pay for medication, consultants’ contracts, the timely collection of money owed from insurance companies and other areas that have little impact on frontline services.
Historically, this country has pushed many different groups of people to the margins. Labour has always stood for bringing them back into the centre. People with disabilities are one such group and defending their right to have the same opportunity for a fulfilled life as any other person is a matter worth waxing hot about. I, for one, will make no apology for doing so.
Labour and Fine Gael are both in danger of becoming too focused on internal control to the detriment of honest and lively discussion. We are heading into a grave budget and our fellow citizens will be ill-served if we fail to identify correctly which choices should be made and which avoided. We can only do so in the context of open and frank dialogue both within and between the two Government parties. Many young and first-time TDs, in both parties, are frustrated at being cut out of the process of engagement with policy because of the perceived need to sanitise any discussion between or within the Government parties. We were all elected on a mandate to restore this country’s future. Some of the promises made during the election cannot be met until our fiscal and economic health is restored.
Perhaps the key promise that should have been made was that we would do what was necessary to secure the recovery, while endeavouring to protect government services and to target help to those most in need of it.
One can understand the fears of those in leadership roles in the parties about having such arguments, as they might lose control of the debate and are wary of a war of words which may irrevocably damage the relations between parties. I’m not insensitive to this, but conflict is important, as it is through such debates that we will be able to secure the identification of the electorate with the policies needed to repair this country.
Another concern expressed was the attention that the international press might show in our affairs because of any political strife. Recent comments of mine appeared in the Financial Times and some voices in the Irish media and figures in Labour and Fine Gael expressed anxiety over this, given the risk that it might unravel the hard work that has been done in repairing out international reputation, particularly with our EU partners.
This risk is real and I am alive to it, but of even greater risk would be the suppression of democratic debate on important matters simply on the basis of being afraid of what others might think.
In any event, even in the midst all of the wrangling last week, Irish bond yields fell throughout the week. Driving down the interest rate we will have to pay on our borrowings may simply have been the markets’ way of letting me know the weight they pay to my utterances.
It should be remembered that those sitting at bond trading desks abroad will never have to suffer the consequences of cuts made to services here. Regaining the trust of the markets is important, but not at the cost of losing the trust of our own citizens.
As we prepare to return to the Dáil, we have a heavy session of work ahead of us. The coming budget will be a tough one but Labour must not be afraid of asserting its values on the process. There are already signs of recovery starting to show themselves. We must ensure that there is still a society intact when that recovery finally happens.
Colm Keaveney is chairman of the Labour Party and a TD for Galway East