Anyone else think Ireland is Totalitarian

[HayGal]

The presidential election shenanigans has made me wonder if we are now a totalitarian state rather than a democracy. Totalitarianism is where theres centralised control, suppression of opposition, propaganda to influence perception. It looks like we will only have candidates from the FF and FG because of how they control government as far as local government. The President is the last point where new laws can be stopped but if the president can only come from FF and FG who have a majority then its all up to them.
I know its a bit heavy for a Monday morning but somethings off about all this.

@theleafandnotthetree if we put definitions aside all im saying is that it should be possible for candidates to get on the ballot paper and not be prevented by political parties who have most to gain by having their candidate in the job.

I don't think it's too difficult to get behind the soundbites.

Newspapers in Ireland, for instance, have a political commentators who challenge narratives, and also columnists who delight in taking the p*ss out of politicians.
There is also a tradition of having guest writers giving opposing and sometimes controversial views on topics.

Online, there are many websites that are highly critical of government policy, as well as other that take a more balanced critical view of political life in Ireland. And we have access to foreign news sites as well - it's sometimes interesting to read what the Dublin correspondent of foreign media are saying about events in Ireland.

There are more ways of getting the news these days, and the internet makes it possible to factcheck by going back to primary sources to see what people really said, what the statistics really are, etc., instead of just going by what the Government Press Office, or what somebody on social media said is 'FACT:'

I dunno Marie, my open-minded, easy going father in law (who is very supportive of women and has read Germaine Greer with enjoyment) reads the Irish Times and watches RTÊ daily and has, thanks to the journalists and opinion writers, come away with the impression that JK Rowling is a transphobic bigot and Barbie Kardashian is misunderstood and definitely needs to be in a women's prison for 'her' own safety. I've discussed it with him and pointed out that the reverse is actually true but he trusts those journalists and opinion writers not to lie to him 🤷‍♀️

Due to our single transferable vote system, we have a more representative Parliament in the Dáil than many other countries have, even among our EU neighbours. There is pretty good representation of smaller parties and independents - look at the US where the 2 main parties almost have a complete monopoly between them on Presidency/House of Representatives/Senate…!

At least RTE is reporting the facts. Most county councillors will not deviate from the party line. So we get to choose from political party nominees only but still time so we can hope there's more.

Plenty of independent councillors. Maybe they can be em , induced , to put more loonies on the ballot.

LOL vote Dustin 😁 couldnt be any worse than the current offerings.

I withdrew that post because it should have gone on the Presidential Election thread.
Though it would have followed on well from the Dustin The Turkey suggestion - the point I was making is that the constitutional role of an tUachtarán is such that blandness is OK, and platitudes are fine, the last thing we need is a president with Notions who is going to try to get involved with party politics or use the position as a soapbox.

For all its well-known faults, the 1937 Constitution, when read in the context of the rise of fascism, has many good points. It emphasised citizens' rights, religious freedom, electoral democracy etc when other Catholic countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal were turning into fascist dictatorships.

Part of that was placing constitutional restraints on what a president could do without the approval of the elected parliamentary representatives of the people.

So a president who is a decent sort, a bit bland, friendly, nothing extreme, represents the country well at home and abroad, respects the limited constitutional role they have been elected to, can speak platitudes in Irish as well as English... that would fit the bill as set out by the constitution, I think.

Maybe not Dustin the Turkey, then😁

@MarieDeGournay agree with most of your thinking except that the president is the last approver of all laws. I would prefer someone more than ceremonial to be in that role and someone who will be able to have some independent thinking in there.

To everyone saying it doesn't matter please ask yourself is it really when onlythe political party nominees ate goven right of passage and everyone else blocked.

The problem with someone independent thinking though is that there is very little they can change. If they have concerns about legislation, they call together the Council of State and can then refer the proposed Bill to the Supreme Court to see if it conflicts with the Constitution - but cannot block it on the basis of generally not being in favour of the legislation themselves.

He/she must get permission of the Government to travel abroad. He signs the letters formally appointing new Irish Ambassadors to overseas Embassies (letters of credence from the Irish head of State to the Head of State in the host country) and receives those letters for new Ambassadors appointed by other counties to Ireland. But it is the Government who decides on who will be appointed as Irish Ambassadors to other countries rather than the President.

So the President can make speeches about things that are important to them, or could set up groups to try and progress some initiatives, as Mary McAleese did on Northern Ireland and Michael D Higgins on issues around the Arts. But they cannot direct how Government policy happens or how Government spending happens.

True. I just wanted a selection of candidates so I could choose from a range of perspectives rather than 3 party affiliates who can only spout the party line. Looks like party politics will have it their way. #let the people decide

I saw this comment today about Steens failure to make it on the ballot and thought it relevant to this thread.
"But democracy is not proven by the mere fact that rules are obeyed. It is defined by whether the people truly choose. In Ireland’s presidential system, the people do not choose who may stand. A narrow class of Oireachtas members and councillors decides that in advance. When the two governing parties enforce discipline, they act as a cartel and close the door on anyone outside their circle.

This is not democracy. It is oligarchy operating within a democratic framework. The ballot the people see is pre-filtered, pre-approved, stage-managed.,"
My own feeling is that in the past the ballot was far more open. In 2011 there were 7 candidates. I really think we are becoming less democratic. I think FF anFG may as well amalgamate, though strategically it probably makes more sense to give the appearance of being 2 separate parties to maximise transfers. But we really are stuck in as one party cartel. What's even more depressing is that the alternative government,a coalition of the left, is even less appealing.

@Sunlightinclouds thank you thank you thank you...that is it exactly. Its unbelievable that there was more choice before we (were told we were) became an inclusive egalitarian society LOL 😀

A previous poster mentioned that we have a much wider range of news sources giving a range of different viewpoints, and the ability to fact check these viewpoints. Thus making us much more informed.

I would not argue with that in theory. Except, that is giving some people much more credit than you should. It has been shown time and time again that there is a subset of people who will absorb their news from whichever their chosen news sources may be (usually those which align with their general views), and will take them at face value, as truly factual. They will not, or can not, fact check the information themselves. They just take the fact it was reported by their chosen news source means it MUST be completely factual. There is no allowances for any nuance or anything.

I think that was me, PotterHead1985
And I agree that it takes time and effort to factcheck things, and that a lot of people just accept stuff they see because it has the word FACT in front of it.

But news sources have never been completely neutral and objective, and what is different these days is that we can, if we choose to, go behind the headlines and the slogans.

You're right that a lot of people just stick to the headlines and the slogans of their chosen news source, but they should admit that that is a choice - there are loads of other freely-available sources they could consult for checks and balances, but they chose not to.

Some people prefer to do the victim thing, and say they are being kept in the dark and deprived of objective facts, despite the range of reports and opinions available to them online - and then in many cases go on to equally but differently biased sources and accept whatever they say as 'FACT'!

You [one] can't make people act in an open-minded and objective way, but when people complain that 'they' or MSM or whoever are keeping us in the dark, it's worth pointing out to them that there's a lot of information from many different angles just a few clicks away, and nobody is stopping them from using their common sense and judgement in doing research from more than one source before reaching an informed conclusion.

We have that choice. Which we wouldn't have in a totalitarian state.

@MarieDeGournay theoretically you are right but how many people have the time or inclination to do that analysis. There used to be some level of critical analysis but now theres none even when there is an obvious contradiction in news reports.

For example Dublin airport is expanding all the time and even more to come here but it is never challenged it from the perspective that we are grossly behind on reaching environmental improvement targets here. Most people need this level of analysis presented to them. Same with presidential nominations and campaign, Steens handbag and religious connections was trotted out everywhere but no mention of questionable associations of other candidates.

If people don't have the time or inclination [not that internet searches take a lot of time] to do their own digging, that's fair enough. It means they are either happy enough with the selection of media outlets they have easy access to, or they are not particularly bothered about the facts.

That's their choice, that's grand. But people who make statements about people or events which they claim are FACT without first looking at a range of available sources - not grand. It's just substituting the bias they accuse 'them' of with a different bias.

You make a great point about the expansion of Dublin Airport - the environmental issues with aviation are well known, but when somebody mentions them out loud, or asks about how people can afford all these overseas holidays, they'll get called something like Cabbage Head or Scrooge or killjoys.

I heard a really good comment recently: Irish people hate the disease, but we hate the cure more.
We don't like having more extreme weather or polluted rivers etc, but don't ask us to do anything like limiting the amounts of flights we take or making slight changes to what we eat..