�鶹Լ��

History Hub�� permalink

Candidates for Presidency elections with a "shadow of the past".

• Message 1.��

  Posted by Thomas (U14985443) on Thursday, 13th October 2011

  I´m currently following the reports on the election campaign for the Irish Presidency. I´ll not going too deep in this current matter but what springs to mind are those other people in history who had their "Shadows of the past" and got elected.
  
  The circumstances are most different and so they were the people running for this highest office of a state. It´s most common that a person who is a convicted murderer can´t candidate for that office because it would bring the office a huge demage, that´s clear. The problem is, that some candidated with an "revolutionary" or other controversial political past, either have some good chances to win, or they were running in the first election for that new established office.
  
  The point in this OP is, that in Ireland the republican candidate M. McGuiness is facing many critics and questions upon his past in the IRA during the troubles in NI and in his capacity as member of the IRA Army Council. The debate is very controversial and most with the focus on him. Some of his supporters have compared him with Nelson Mandela, for Mandela was as well enganged in the struggle for freedom in South Africa and as well branded a terrorist (for some people he still is). He also turned from that to a honoured man across the world for his efforts to ending the Apartheid Regime and bring peace and reconciliation to his country . McGuiness´s critics say that this comparison doesn´t stand at all so the debate is on focus upon his IRA membership and so on.
  
  This thing has reminded me of the decades when most of the Irish politicians in the Irish Free State and later in the Irish Republic who were also involved in the Irish war of independence and the following civil war. This has cost more lives than during the trouble decades. So state it clear, even one killed person in a conflict is one too much already.
  
  This "Shadow of the past" is a description of the untold truth of personal responsibility and involvement. They normally are going back to the youth time of the persons concerned, but they were still brought up to test them on how or even whether they really have changed. Some candidates made a good career and when they were running for Presidency, some digged in the past and found something, the candidate was covering for various reasons. To mention an example to that, it was the case by the Austrian President Kurt Waldheim and his membership in the NSDAP and SA during the Third Reich. The way he handled the matter became more embarrassing to him and to his country, although he once held an high office in the UN. This all occured in 1986.
  
  What these named people have / had in common is, that their membership and / or comittment took place when they were young people, to say in their early 20s for example. This was then, when they were running for Presidency, long or some decades ago. In the meantime they changed their political agenda and way of life to become involved in peace making.
  
  I´d like to ask the people on here how they consider and on which accounts whether and how one fits for the office of a Presidency. Is it more the clean political biography or is it more the agenda the candidate provides for this office. Does it more matter what on has achievd by his efforts in a peace proces or is the weight of his deeds in the past that heavy that he can´t be forgiven and treated the way he is at the time of an election with hindsight of the last past decades?
  
  Mandela was more than 25 years imprisoned / interned and became President of South Africa just a few years after he was released. He has been voted into this office at a time, when the peace proces in his country was still in progress. I haven´t read yet that he had killed a person by his own hands, but he was also a high rank member of the excutive comittee of the ANC.
  
  I think that a certin popularity is playing a major role in this, but when you´ve some more average or self-discrediting candidates, what is left for the voter to have a choice? Any other examples from history that seems similar to that?

  Link to this forum: Candidates for Presidency elections with a "shadow of the past".

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 13th October 2011

  I agree with Douglas Adams -
  - Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
  

  Link to this forum: Candidates for Presidency elections with a "shadow of the past".

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Friday, 14th October 2011

  I have often put forward the view the “politics is the highest form of hypocrisy”, but the Irish Presidential campaign as surprised even me.
  
  The Southern Politicians have praised ‘Blessed Martin’ to high heaven for his ‘peace making’, they have lauded his ‘diplomacy’ in dealing with his ‘former enemies’ – he is the ideal ‘reformed man’. They have critisized the Unionist politicians who refused to talk to him, telling them ‘they must move on for the sake of peace’, they are ‘recalcitrant’, they are ‘unable to let go of the past’, etc. They did their best to push those Unionists into power sharing, and encouraged the British Govt to push them even harder. Many of these Unionists have spent 30 years attending the funerals of friends and relatives killed by the IRA, but they must ‘forgive and forget’, and move on.
  
  Now Martin is running for President, they hold up their hands in horror at his ‘past’!
  
  They drag out IRA victims in the South, to ask him to name those who killed their relatives. (He must know who killed dozens of British soldiers and Northern Protestants, but obviously THEY have to forgive and forget!) They complain that it will make the country a laughing stock – this after the mess it’s current politicians made of it’s economy, it’s banking system, and it’s church. They ask ‘how can he meet World Leaders’, in spite of the fact that he is the only candidate who has already met most of them!
  
  I was raised in an Ulster Catholic (but not Republican) household, and lived here through most of the troubles. I would never feel comfortable voting Sinn Fein, not matter how many Armani suits or Sainted Leaders they have, but I believe in fair treatment.
  
  If he is good enough for us, he is good enough for them!!
  

  Link to this forum: Candidates for Presidency elections with a "shadow of the past".

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Thomas (U14985443) on Friday, 14th October 2011

  Thanks for your post giraffe47.
  
  As I suppose that you´ve also followed the recent debates or news articles on the Presidency elections, the main issue isn´t what the candidates have to offer in their policies, the issues are focused either on personal things or the past of the candidates, especially one candidate.
  
  I think that Mr McGuiness was aware of the ordeal he would taking up by running in this election campaign with himself as candidate.
  
  I think the points you´ve made regarding him and his engagements within the peace process in NI, are important. The media has played and still is playing a major role in all this. I´d not trust SF either, but as you said "If he is good enough for us, he is good enough for them!!", it might be that if the re-unification of Ireland is still a matter of interest of the people of Ireland, than maybe McGuiness is the probably more capable person to bring it foreward. Of course this is meant in a middle to long term period, it can´t be achieved in a short time.
  
  I also wouldn´t think that if McGuiness would become the President of the Irish Republic, that there would be some demage for Irelands international reputation. It´s quite curious that some "independent candidate" is rather embarrassed upon his membership to a certain party in Ireland, but what´s really remarkable in all this is, that it is possible for people with dual-citizenship to run for the Presidency.
  
  I do not know any other example - so far from history - in which a politician, like McGuiness himself MP of the UK Parliament and a British as well as an Irish citizen can be a candidate of the office of the President. This is unique, but it might also be an opportunity for the voters. In this case, it would be interesting to know whether the people in NI with both (British and Irish) citizenship are allowed to take part in that election (via the Irish Consulate).
  
  They drag out IRA victims in the South, to ask him to name those who killed their relatives. (He must know who killed dozens of British soldiers and Northern Protestants, but obviously THEY have to forgive and forget!)��
  One should know how the IRA Army Council worked and who was in charge to give orders (one person alone or all members of the council together). I don´t know how this worked. Anyway I doubt that the names of those who pulled the trigger will ever be revealed.
  
  Maybe they could follow the example Mandela and set up as similar "truth committee" to get over the past, but Ireland is different to South Africa. At least it seems that in NI has been a basis achieved on which the peace process can go further. I think that this is a main point after all.

  Link to this forum: Candidates for Presidency elections with a "shadow of the past".

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Harpo (U14643022) on Saturday, 15th October 2011

  Thomas,
  
  I think this strays too far into current affairs.
  
  My view of Martin McGuiness is that his paramilitary baggage does not become the office of president of the republic. I know people say that it is hypocritical of us in the south to spurn him when he has been 'accepted' as a politician in Northern Ireland but the two situations are not the same. In the north McGuiness was part of the problem and his political legitimacy derives from him becoming part of the solution.
  
  In the south we have had a stable mature democracy for nigh on a century and we left the whiff of cordite behind us 80 years ago. In my view, it would reflect detrimentally on our Republic to elect someone with paramilitary connections to the Presidency.
  
  My preferred candidate, a true Republican, is Michael D. Higgins:
  
  

  Link to this forum: Candidates for Presidency elections with a "shadow of the past".

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by VoiceOfReason (U14405333) on Sunday, 16th October 2011

  Nelson Mandela spent his 25 years or so in prison for peacefully protesting for Democracy
  You cannot compare the two men

  Link to this forum: Candidates for Presidency elections with a "shadow of the past".

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Thomas (U14985443) on Monday, 17th October 2011

  Thanks for the link, Harpo.
  
  I´m of course aware that this topic strays too far into current affairs and if the candidature of Mr McGuiness hadn´t turned the focus on his past and on Irish history of the last 40 years, I hadn´t started this thread.
  
  It´s the first time that I´m following the media on an Irish Presidency election. Most of the articles I´ve read are from The Irish Independent and to me, they´re most interesting, including the posts of the commentators there.
  
  In this controversial debate which is ongoing in the Irish media, I´ve often thought on the way De Valera made it to
  - President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State from 1932 to 1937
  
  - Taoiseach of Éire from 1937 to 1948
  
  - President of the Republic of Ireland from 1959 to 1973.
  
  It´s not the same way to compare De Valera and McGuiness on their biography, but De Valera as well as McGuiness were both Republicans and also members of a paramilitary organisation, the IRA. De Valera, and this has also been mentioned by an Irish posters on the comments to an article of The Irish Independent, was the man who was - among others - held responsible for the Irish Civil War from 1922 to 1923. He was the leading figure of those rejecting the Anglo-Irish-Treaty and there are not less historians who claim, that if he and his fellows had accepted the treaty, there hadn´t been a civil war in Ireland at all. This war has cost more lifes within a year than all the killed in IRA campaings together.
  
  The Irish people at that time, were not that critical towards De Valera as they are nowadays towards McGuiness. This is not meant to judge them, it´s that to point out how this society in Ireland has changed within the past 40 years.
  
  I also find your post very interesting for it gives me the impression about how the people in modern Ireland think today. You said that McGuiness was part of the problem in NI. I see it that way that also De Valera was part of the problems the Irish Free State had in its early decades of development and as long De Valera was in office, as long he directed the way the Anglo-Irish relations developed up to his retirement in 1973 and the joining of the RoI, together with the UK, into the EEC / EU.
  
  So what´s the point here I like to make anyway? The point is, that both persons were / are committed to the Republican Ideals, which may differ in some ways, but which were the most top priority of them.
  
  I´ve got more the impression from these various articles I´ve read, that the Irish people are more interested in solutions re the economy and financial crisis than to consider whether and when the Republic of Ireland will re-united with NI. That seems to be the last of the topics. Above all, they like to have an President that is rather of an integrating than diverting character. This "Republicanism" doesn´t seems to be a decisive issue as it may had been in the first fifty years of the Irish State.
  
  I´ve no doubt that the Republic of Ireland has a stable mature democracy and all those people who are against McGuiness are in a mood of defending this achieved democracy. I admit that McGuiness might have something winning in his appearance, but I can´t help it that there is something which would deter myself to vote for him, if I were an Irish citizen. On the other hand I wonder if it is justified to draw comparisions from him to Hitler, as I´ve read such comments of that paper too. I think that this might be a bit exaggerated and also has no basic.
  
  Wouldn´t you say that when comparing the priority of an Irish re-unification, this is more an issue to the people in NI than to those living in the Republic of Ireland?
  
  It is not quite simple to make an assessment between the desire of an united country between Ireland and Germany, because in my country, the circumstances were quite different and there were to opposing political blocks between them. The point in this, which remindes me to the decades before Germany became re-united is, that the longer the country was divided, the less the people were interested in re-unification. More accepting the status quo and this was probably easier for the people in West-Germany than in the GDR. Once history has opened an time window and the chance to grab re-unification, this aslept desire of an united Germany was awaken.
  
  But back to Ireland. Maybe you see the point I was trying to make, that De Valera could had been (I suppose to some people he is) seen as well as a "Terrorist" as McGuiness, just for the similarities they share in their biography in some ways.
  
  I´ve read that De Valera tried to call off the assassination of Michael Collins, but it was too late for that. So how could someone like De Valera became the leading politician in an Irish State which he rejected to accept and which fought against? I´ve no proof of whether De Valera has ordered the killing of Michael Collins, but in some ways people say that he had Collins´s blood on his hands and in regards on the Irish Civil War, more than just this.
  
  Times are changing and if McGuiness hadn´t decided to run for the Irish Presidency, the people wouldn´t talk about what happened during the Troubles again. It might be the case that Michael D. Higgins will make it to the Àras and he seems to be the one who will take the profit from all the "fighting with the shadows of the past". What is still obviously is, that these shadows aren´t gone yet and they might trouble the people for some times to come as well, even when there are more serious issues on the agenda to be solved than them.
  
  Anyway, I wish the Irish people all the best and may they make the best choice out of all these candidates as they think it will do for the best of their country.
  
  There isn´t any contradiction between being a "Social Democrat" and a "true Republican", isn´t it? Remarkable how some political labels have their different meanings in various countries.

  Link to this forum: Candidates for Presidency elections with a "shadow of the past".

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 17th October 2011

  
  Nelson Mandela spent his 25 years or so in prison for peacefully protesting for Democracy
  You cannot compare the two men
  ��
  
  Since 1961 Mandela had been leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe, a militant "wing" of the ANC. Upon his and his colleagues' arrest in a clampdown on the UwS the following items were seized in the same operation:
  
  210,000 hand grenades 48,000 anti-personnel mines 1,500 timing devices, 144 tons of ammonium nitrate, 21.6 tons of aluminium powder and 1 ton of "black powder".
  
  Define "peaceful protest", Glencairn99.

  Link to this forum: Candidates for Presidency elections with a "shadow of the past".

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by VoiceOfReason (U14405333) on Monday, 17th October 2011

  Mandela's targets were oil/power plants etc designed to cause difficulties to the apartheid system, innocent people were not targets whilst he was involved
  also the problems of catholic Irishmen in Ulster can't be compared to the lives of black South Africans under apartheid

  Link to this forum: Candidates for Presidency elections with a "shadow of the past".

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Harpo (U14643022) on Wednesday, 19th October 2011

  Thomas,
  
  Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been abroad for the last few days.
  
  There are some superficial similarities between De Valera and McGuiness. They were both took up the gun, they both obtained a mandate through the ballot-box and both held positions of power within the state. Whereas De Valera led the opposition to the 1921 Treaty he eventually repudiated armed force thereby essentially vindicating Michael Collins view regarding the Treaty. But he went one step further by opposing the gunmen, imprisoning them and occasionally executing them.
  
  <quote>The Irish people at that time, were not that critical towards De Valera as they are nowadays towards McGuiness. This is not meant to judge them, it´s that to point out how this society in Ireland has changed within the past 40 years. </quote>
  
  It was not only the Irish people. De Valera was Taoiseach and President of the Republic but he also achieved international recognition as President of the League of Nation and was respected as a statesman.
  
  <quote>I´ve got more the impression from these various articles I´ve read, that the Irish people are more interested in solutions re the economy and financial crisis than to consider whether and when the Republic of Ireland will re-united with NI.<quote>
  
  The Irish people of the Republic spoke loud and clear regarding unification when they voted 93% in favour of the Good Friday Agreement.
  
  <quote>This "Republicanism" doesn´t seems to be a decisive issue as it may had been in the first fifty years of the Irish State.</quote>
  
  Can’t agree with you there, Thomas. Republicanism, in my view, is even more important now. We need to perfect our republican state by promoting republican ideals in every aspect of it existence and operation.
  
  <quote>I´ve read that De Valera tried to call off the assassination of Michael Collins, but it was too late for that. … I´ve no proof of whether De Valera has ordered the killing of Michael Collins, …</quote>
  
  The notion that Dev was in any way involved in Collins killing is completely without any foundation. They simply took opposing sides.
  
  <quote>There isn´t any contradiction between being a "Social Democrat" and a "true Republican", isn´t it? Remarkable how some political labels have their different meanings in various countries. </quote>
  
  The essence of republicanism, the philosophy at its very heart, is that people are self-governing and do not live ‘in potestate domini’ (in the power of a master). They are not subject to the arbitrary power and authority of privilege and are all equal before the law.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Candidates for Presidency elections with a "shadow of the past".

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by Thomas (U14985443) on Thursday, 20th October 2011

  Hi Harpo,
  
  I´d agree with you re the superficial similarities between De Valera and McGuiness. They´re both not that equal in their characters, but they have some things in common re their political biography in concern of their membership in the IRB/IRA and as Republicans.
  
  But he went one step further by opposing the gunmen, imprisoning them and occasionally executing them.��
  
  This was just when he came to power and after his predecessor issued the ban of the IRA and made it possible to prosecute them by legislation in 1932. I´m aware that De Valera, afterwards was also fighting the IRA according to the office he held then. After he and his followers had lost the civil war in 1923, he was in the political "wilderness" (if one likes to see it that way) and had his come back in 1932. It can be seen that from that time onwards, his reputation was growing, among the Irish people and internationally.
  
  If the Irish people hadn´t granted him the chance to get elected for several times, he hadn´t got the opportunities to evolve to that statesman as many people regard him, then and in the present.
  
  I also would agree with you on the matter re De Valera´s involvement into the Assassination of Michael Collins. There are lots of speculations and the whole truth might never come to the surface. The point anyway in this is, whether and if so what did De Valera know about the planned ambush and why is it stated in a history book that De Valera tried to call the ambush off? Someone who doesn´t know anything about that can´t call off an ambush. He was one of the leading figures of the Anti-Treaty Republicans. He was the figurehead and the one outstanding from all the others who led the propaganda against the Treaty. A man in such an high and leading position can´t deny his involvement.
  
  The similarity in this is, that not less people nowadays assert that McGuiness "know, have to know or even must have known" about the actions of the PIRA in the 1970s and 1980s. Even some other crimes of the PIRA, which took place just seven years ago are claimed to "had been" to his knowledge. So, what does one in such high positions really know or even is coordinating? It´s a question of how these branches of the PIRA operated and how many "freedom" they had to plan and execute operations on their own, without consultation of the IRA Army Council? But this is a matter for a seperate thread and I do not know much about the "order-chain" of the PIRA and the IRA Army Council.
  
  The Irish people of the Republic spoke loud and clear regarding unification when they voted 93% in favour of the Good Friday Agreement.��
  
  Yes, that was a clear decision although it doesn´t mean that the aim of a re-unification of Ireland is totally abolished by this. It means rather that this aim can only be achieved by peace. That´s the way I see the result of the voting in favour of the Good Friday Agreement, that the people wanted to have peace in their country.
  
  The essence of republicanism, the philosophy at its very heart, is that people are self-governing and do not live ‘in potestate domini’ (in the power of a master). They are not subject to the arbitrary power and authority of privilege and are all equal before the law.��
  
  I know about the meaning of that, but what I was saying in my post was, that "Republicanism" can be and has been used as a political label which has less to do with the real meaning of it. It is more used by parties in a range from right of the centre to the far-right political movements. From the late 1980s to the late 1990s, we´ve had a political party, split from the centre-right, which named itself "Die Republikaner" (The Republicans). They were on the far-right and they gained some votes in some elections, but never made it to higher political influence by gaining seats in Parliaments in Germany.
  
  Sinn Fein is, as I´ve read it on another article, placed as being on the left of the centre, some say even on the far-left, but they´re "Republicans". Others take them in the "Fascist corner" or any other place they like to see them.
  
  Maybe I´ve explained a bit more the meaning of my post, that in some countries a "Republican" means a quite different political follower as in Ireland.
  
  Republicanism to Social Democrats is a thing quite naturally as Democracy is, they don´t have to lable themselves as such, at least in my country.
  
  Republicanism, in my view, is even more important now. We need to perfect our republican state by promoting republican ideals in every aspect of it existence and operation.��
  
  I´ve noticed that on several articles on the Irish Independent, mentioned by some candidates and some commentators (posters) there. There seems to be also a debate ongoing in regards of what is left of the aims from the 1916 Proclamation and what has to be and can be achieved in the light of the up coming centenary of the Easter Rising. That´s an interesting thing, because it shows that despite the "some misserable" politicians, the Irish people take care about their Republic and democracy.
  
  I´d like to ask you, if you don´t mind, how do you regard the title "WestBrit". Is it an insult towards people or is it a label some people choose for themselves to distinguis them from Republicans?
  
  I´ve come across that in recent times, in documentaries about the pre-time of the Easter Rising 1916 and nowadays by some poster who took it as his nickname.

  Link to this forum: Candidates for Presidency elections with a "shadow of the past".

  Report message11

Back to top