So John Bruton has been toppled. Interesting, is it not, that the media, who have been screaming for heads to roll in relation to corruption, have succeeded only in seeing off a man universally regarded as radiating integrity?
There will be indignant squawks at the very idea that any element of the media bears any responsibility for John Bruton's demise as leader. Yet if we analyse John Bruton's alleged failings, they seem to come down to two. Firstly, he lacked charisma, and secondly, he insisted that he be involved in and aware of every element of policy.
Let's take the first complaint regarding his lack of charisma. It can be loosely translated as meaning he was not a natural media performer, that, to put it mildly, the camera did not love him. Perhaps de Valera or W.T. Cosgrave should be glad they lived in an era where what you said and did was more important than how you looked and sounded.
The conundrum about John Bruton is that everyone acknowledges he is a victim of a poor media image but the reality of the man is different. If we all know that, why is his image so vital? The only answer can be that image is more important than substance, even when we know the image does no justice to the substance. If this is not proof of the power of the media, what is?
Mind you, that power works in a somewhat haphazard fashion. It is not as if cherished agendas are assured of success. The almost universal loathing displayed towards Fianna Fail among media practitioners seems only to drive that party's opinion poll ratings higher. No, the power of the media lies in the way in which the politics of image and the soundbite have come to dominate. This, most assuredly, is not a conscious aim of the media, which constantly bemoan the dumbing down of politics. Yet the very existence of the media and the insatiable appetite for stories mean substance becomes less and less important in politics and image becomes more and more important.
It was also extraordinary in the past week how many commentators criticised John Bruton for his interest in policies and for the depth of his analysis, which, apparently, was incomprehensible to the general public. The reality is that the media, while on the one hand bewailing the death of issue-driven politics, is in the main too lazy or too deadline-dominated to read detailed policy statements, much less attempt to present them to the public.
If the commentators criticised the content of his policies, that might be more understandable. Personally, I have little sympathy for his policies on the North. I also find it amazing that a person who is so concerned about the atomisation of society should have used his not inconsiderable talents to bring about the introduction of divorce. Disagreement on the content of policies is one thing and part of any civilised society is reasoned debate. But to criticise him for having well-thought-out policies which were not easily reduced to soundbites? When did that become a crime?
But then, those who mounted the leadership challenge may well believe cuteness is a more pragmatic option than policies. Private opinion polls showed Fine Gael retaining and gaining seats in the next election. No doubt the new leader, whoever that may be, hopes those polls will prove accurate and therefore will allow him to claim credit for those electoral gains.
Such cuteness may well backfire, because the problems afflicting Fine Gael run deep. Firstly, it has to decide on its identity. Recently, I was asked to speak at the Fine Gael conference for the Dublin area and I hung around all day, just observing. The first thing that struck me was the obvious regard shown for John Bruton by the rank-and-file activists. The second was how concerned those activists were about the pressures on families and children, and how clearly many of them see the downside of the Celtic Tiger.
Some of those from Fine Gael who addressed the conference seemed to have little empathy with their own rank and file, but John Bruton certainly did. Sure, the Celtic Snail campaign was a fiasco, but it arose from a genuine desire to give expression to the concerns of people on the ground. Fine Gael will go nowhere as a party until it is internally united and in agreement as to whom it really wants to represent. At the moment, there is a growing constituency which feels unrepresented by any political party because, ironically, in an age which trumpets the importance of choice and diversity, consensus politics means many voters have no choice. This could represent an opportunity for Fine Gael but it is a gamble it is unlikely to take.
Fine Gael is also suffering from the reality which faces all political parties. Electoral politics is becoming sidelined worldwide, as shown by low election turnouts. Here in Ireland, our success in promoting social partnership has meant that many functions once carried out by the Dail have been usurped by the partnership model. Some hail this as an increase in participatory democracy, where ordinary people get to influence policy. This is at best a naive view. Decisions, whether ultimately good or bad for our society, are now being taken by pressure groups and vested interests who are not readily accountable. Politicians still have to keep a wary eye on the next election. It is not so simple in the case of the social partners.
Also, so many decisions are now being taken at EU level. People might have been offended by what the EU said about our last Budget, but the reality is that in successive referendums, we have voted to cede more and more of our national sovereignty to the EU. This includes economic criteria. We have voted to make local politics more and more powerless. Is that what we really wanted to do?
Fine Gael has found and hanged its scapegoat, but until it begins to acknowledge that its problems run far deeper than leadership image, I wonder what good it will do the party.
bobrien@irish-times.ie