Clientelist Culture - Holding Back Ireland's Political Policies?

Image c/o Broadsheet.ie

THE IRISH political system is littered with oddities - before one even begins to discuss individuals. Some of these anomalies have led to the culture of clientelism that exists in our country. TDs have two roles - firstly that of legislator and, secondly, local dignitary and promoter. In Irish eyes, the latter is usually deemed more important.

Political parties often choose to contest an election on local issues¹, to the detriment of policy formation and legislation. And who could blame them? From 1922-1997, 34 per cent of TDs who lost their seats did so to a running mate. Our electoral system - Proportional Representation by means of a Single Transferable Vote in a Multi-Seat Constituency (PR-STV) - pits members of the same party against each other. Given the fact they cannot differentiate themselves from their peers on ideological issues, they must do so in terms of constituency work. In the 2002 General Election, the 14 Independent seats went to candidates who argued that their constituencies were not receiving enough government funding, particularly in terms of the ever-emotive area of health services.²

Clientelism exists for a number of reasons. Ireland's colonial background has created a history of alienation from central government, stemming back to British Rule. The urban-rural divide or 'us and them' mentality is also a factor in this regard. In the 1960s Basil Chubb, one of the first political commentators of the modern era, stated: "For generations, Irish people saw that, to get the benefits the public authorities bestow, the help of a man with connections and influence was necessary. All that democracy has meant is that such a man has been laid on officially, as it were, and is now no longer a master but a servant."³

Article 16.2.6 of the 1937 Irish Constitution states that a TD can represent a maximum of 30,000 citizens. One might assume that this relatively small ratio would enable politicians to spend the majority of their time focusing on their primary role of legislator. This, however, is not the case. The scale of society means that TDs can hold up to four 'clinics' a week, where they listen to the grievances of their constituents and, essentially, are asked for favours.

Many people still hold the opinion that one must know someone with "pull" in order to receive the State benefits they are entitled to. However, politicians often access facilities rather than provide them. They have experience of dealing with our particular brand of bureaucracy and know how to navigate the often complex maze that is Irish red tape. Meticulous applications for planning permission and social welfare benefits could well be as effective, if not more so, than supposed political intervention. Whether or not TDs actually exercise any influence on a decision that affects their constituency, or a member of it, is much debated. It has been claimed that they rarely objectively impact such decisions but merely create imaginary patronage through an "illusion of assistance" aided by advance knowledge of the outcome.³

This type of activity is systemic and cabinet ministers are seemingly as prone to engage in the process of brokerage as their lesser-known peers. The resignation of the Junior Minister for Health, Labour's Róisín Shortall, in September - over what she labelled "stroke politics" by Minister for Health James Reilly - highlighted this fact. Two locations in his north Dublin constituency were added to a list of places chosen for primary care centres on the evening before they were announced by the Government. The HSE and Ms Shortall had drawn up a priority list of locations in terms of need for the service. On it, Balbriggan ranked 44th and Swords was placed in 130th position. There were 36 locations on the final list. Despite near constant allegations, Mr Reilly has repeatedly denied localism played a part in the last minute additions. Last week's austere budget has deflected some attention from this particular issue but the argument still rumbles on.

Clientelism keeps politicians in touch with local issues but, unfortunately, its negative consequences far outweigh the positive ones. Clientelism disorganises the poor and vulnerable in society as it prevents them from grouping together and attempting to bring about real social and political change.³ It increases resentment and a feeling of exclusion for those who disagree with or do not engage in the practice.³ It also makes it extremely difficult for new politicians to break through and pump much needed fresh blood into the body of the Irish government.³

President Michael D Higgins previously stated that clientelism "seriously sells us short and distracts attention from the real basis of economic exploitation, political domination and ideological manipulation in Irish society".³ It seems that the process, like many contentious Irish political issues, isn't going away any time soon. Perhaps if our elected representatives spent more time dealing with their primary role of policy making, better decisions - both in terms of investment and cutbacks - might be made.


References:

¹ Adshead, M and Tonge, J (2009) Politics in Ireland, Palgrave Macmillan
² Gallagher, M; Marsh, M and Mitchell, P (2003) How Ireland Voted 2002, Palgrave Macmillan
³ Higgins, MD (2008) Causes for Concern: Irish Politics, Culture and Society, Liberties Press