POLITICAL PARTIES and amateur dramatic societies share deceptive names. There are few instances as devoid of political debate as a local party branch meeting and few places where theatre is less discussed than in amateur dramatic societies, writes TONY KINSELLA
Those of us who have joined either usually do so in a burst of enthusiasm and interest. The party experience quickly reduces itself to electoral contests, while the drama society is occupied with the nuts and bolts of the next production.
Life supplies most of us with all the drama we need, but where is political debate to be found?
When historians come to write early 21st century European history the likelihood is that the Treaty of Lisbon will merit little more than a detailed footnote. The essence of the treaty is a number of useful, even desirable, procedural changes to an evolving European project.
Our native donkey drivers of the apocalypse berate us with their dark fears that Lisbon will lead to a unique self-defeating cocktail of compulsory abortions and military service, while others argue that human political development should never move beyond the current nation state structure.
Sinn Féin struggles to build support for an ill-defined revolutionary alternative on the basis of opposition to largely procedural reforms. A difficult manoeuvre at the best of times, and these are far from being the best of times.
Irish political bodies and their leaders did not so much fail to place the initial treaty debate within a political context – they failed to offer such a context in the first place. The current slightly healthier Lisbon debate is no substitute for the wider political dialogue we so desperately need.
We find ourselves living in the most politically charged years since, at least, the second World War in that we are confronted with making very basic choices about the kind of societies we want our children to inherit.
Governments have understandably, and reasonably successfully, raced to prevent a total meltdown of the global financial system. This has bought us a breathing space. The drowning person has been thrown a life jacket, but must now choose between climbing back on the boat, striking out for shore, or just slipping out of their jacket and letting the waves take them.
The 136 pages of the proposed National Asset Management Agency (Nama) legislation sketchily outlines a stark political choice for us all. If adopted, every man woman and child – and particularly the latter – in the country will be buying into a speculative gamble on “turning around” the €90 billion mess our banks, property developers and Government have managed to achieve.
That is a very fundamental political choice (and one with a per capita price tag of over €22,000) but where is the comprehensive debate about it to be found?
Although the global economy is breathing again, there is broad agreement that the recovery will be slow and protracted and is not going to whisk us back to pre-recession rates of growth and levels of employment.
Government support for the scrapping of older cars is having a positive effect on car sales in many countries.
The US scheme offering rebates of up to $4,500 (€3,134) became operational on July 27th last. Last Thursday the US Congress had to triple the budget as the original $1 billion allocated was almost exhausted.
The UK scheme offers purchasers of more fuel-efficient vehicles up to £2,000 (€2,334), and its success means that it will run out of money six months earlier than planned.
Despite this boost, UK car market experts predict sales will not reach their pre-recession level for at least a decade.
It doesn’t take a PhD in economics to work out that neither Uncle Sam, her majesty’s nor anybody else’s government can afford to shell out indefinitely to keep garage forecourts at least occupied if not busy.
Even in fiscally-responsible Germany, political leaders are frantically pursuing putative pots of gold at the end of rainbows as their general election campaigns struggle to get going.
Most German primary schools close up at one in the afternoon and the chronic shortage of childcare facilities has blighted the lives of many German parents.
This makes the campaign promise by Olaf Scholz from the centre-left SPD to introduce a “legal right to all-day day care” for children look attractive – until you remember that Mr Scholz is the outgoing federal minister for labour.
Not to be outdone Angela Merkel’s centre-right CDU are promising rapid tax cuts and better pensions for the low paid. Even Guido Westerwelle, leader of the pro-business FDP liberal party, long a defender of the need for tough budgetary decisions, now argues that the private asset limit for long term unemployed benefit should be tripled.
These proposals need to be set in the context of a social insurance deficit heading for €30 billion by the end of this year under the impact of rising unemployment payments and falling contributions.
Sometime soon most governments are going to reach the outer limits of what has traditionally been deemed to be acceptable in terms of borrowing.
Traditionalists argue that the main response should involve slashing expenditure. Although quite how you can make significant reductions in social payments when official unemployment in Ireland has now reached 12.2 per cent remains to be explained.
Others suggest that a blend of expenditure restraints and tax increases offers a more attractive solution. Or should we be actively considering how to develop different international rules on State borrowing and investment?
All these involve fundamental choices which should flow from extensive political debate.
Parties incapable of even envisaging such political debates are doomed to extinction.
Amateur dramatic societies can at least offer next season’s pantomime.