THE TIMING of a Cabinet reshuffle is rarely a matter of choice and more often one of necessity. After the forced resignation of three ministers (two senior and a junior) in recent weeks – on health grounds or for ethical reasons – Taoiseach Brian Cowen must fill the vacancies created to restore his Cabinet to full strength and help the Government regain lost authority.
But first Mr Cowen must decide whether to opt for a major reshuffle of ministers. Most likely this would involve the demotion of some under performing members of government and the promotion of others from junior ministerial ranks. In a less challenging political and economic environment, a taoiseach facing an election within two years – which he seemed set to lose – might attempt such a bold move. But Mr Cowen is badly placed to do so given his own and the Government’s low standing in opinion polls. He seems more likely to follow his natural instincts and adopt a minimalist approach.
The constraints that he faces are clear. Martin Cullen’s resignation as Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism on health grounds was anticipated. But his decision to step down with immediate effect as a TD was not envisaged. This has exacerbated the Government’s tenuous voting majority in the Dáil.
Nevertheless, political history demonstrates that even minority administrations can provide effective government: as exemplified by Sean Lemass in the 1960s and later (1987-1989) when a Fianna Fáil minority government laid the foundations for economic recovery, aided by Fine Gael’s adoption of the Tallaght strategy. However, economic conditions this time present the Government with a far greater challenge than that faced by any of its predecessors.
In his Cabinet reshuffle, Mr Cowen is likely to place a premium on experience and to reject the need for sweeping ministerial changes while accommodating his coalition partner. Whatever the terms of the Green party’s secret agreement with Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach in 2007, it should recognise that economic and political conditions have changed utterly in the intervening period. The concept of a rotating minister, standing down after three years having just mastered a major departmental brief, makes little sense.
Mr Gormley should remain in place. Job rotation – like work experience – may well have its place but not in a government facing a challenge without precedent in the State’s history.