The mounting call for either an authentic right-wing party or a “revival of conventional norms” is akin to trying to grasp smoke: elusive. The sentiment of “No more” doesn’t seem to meet this need.
What’s apparent is that certain advocates feel compelled to emphasize their equitable and level-headed attitudes, and highlight the degree to which they’ve absorbed the concepts outlined in past referendums. Succinctly, they need to illustrate emphatically how non-progressive they are.
Differently, some individuals such as de Valera, whose verbiage from 1937 intriguingly is considered pertinent for 2024, merely need to delve into their own hearts to understand the people’s desires and remember that someone has to halt the stride of the progressive throng. A period of roughly twelve years – traced back roughly to Savita Halappanavar’s untimely death – is sufficient, they say.
However, for many, this dozen years feels like the blink of an eye when you consider the vast timescale it took for matters like abortion rights and same-gender marriage to reach the voting booths. Take into consideration all those years filled with dismal struggles for basic contraception rights, the botched 1986 divorce public vote filled with the right’s blatant distortions, the infamously strict Eighth Amendment and the 1992 X case where a 14-year-old girl, victim of a rape, was denied the right to “travel”. Indeed, a pivotal reference for recollection at this point would be Emily O’Reilly’s 1992 book, “Masterminds of the Right”.
Politicians like Varadkar and Ardern, appearing fatigued, signals the damaging effects of the political playground.
Only a dozen years in the past, I found myself conducting clandestine interviews with apprehensive couples about their emotional trips to Liverpool to terminate dearly desired yet nonviable pregnancies diagnosed on Irish soil. The eerie silence and societal taboo surrounding their grief-stricken reality should serve as a grim reminder for us all.
In most of the succinct and personal commentary post the recent referendums, the mantra “enough is enough” looms anxiously at the periphery, hinting at hordes of people who’ve implemented enough significant changes by opting for empathy and compassion. But, it suggests, that era has passed. Is this an accurate assertion?
Could it be that these determining votes are being mixed up with the supposed “cultural wars” involving race, gender, and language that have greatly affected other nations, while leaving Ireland mostly untouched? Historically, we haven’t enslaved any ethnic groups on our lands, our police officers aren’t renowned for shooting black individuals, and the majority of us don’t hesitate to use any available washroom without feeling compelled to deliver a speech. Nonetheless, due to our interconnected world, these topics have led to substantial discussions.
One plausible idea given in good faith is that the phrase “enough is enough” may signify the unavoidable, periodically unreasonable, short-lived disparities that characterise the shift from an oppressive theocracy to a more fair, secular, and compassionate society.
A fitting example to look at is the #MeToo movement that shook a significant part of the world following the criminal revelation of Harvey Weinstein. This well-justified torrential outpour brought everything down in its path, even getting to the point where acclaimed feminist Margaret Atwood was criticised as a “bad feminist” for backing a Canadian scholar who had been publicly accused of horrific rape allegations without a formal inquiry.
It’s a telling sign that a large number of women are still unable or unwilling to identify their attackers; however, the wider consequence of the #MeToo movement was to drive employers to act, alert habitual offenders of their actions, and make more women conscious of their rights.
In situations where unfairness, repression, or injustice persist, explosive reactions are bound to occur and imbalances will be inevitable.
If the conservative party of some people’s fantasies had been around back then, what actions would it have taken? Would it have comforted women? What would it propose to weaken, overturn, establish, or advocate now?
The Progressive Democrats, a right-wing political party frequently linked to this discussion, were established at a time when the nation was, in the words of Gay Byrne, “in ruins”. During this period, unemployment was soaring over 17%, interest rates nearly reached 20%, hundreds of thousands of people were leaving the country, and the IRA was in full force. A notable event from this time was the expulsion of Desmond O’Malley from the Fianna Fáil party in 1985, for dissenting from the party’s stance on contraception – a fact which tells us much about that period and its subsequent fallouts.
The Progressive Democrats, who were generally socially liberal, advocated for private ownership, reduced taxes, and the Boston model of economy over Berlin’s. This presented a fresh approach that appealed to a despondent, city-based cohort of young business people. However, their influence waned from 1985, slipping from an initial 14 seats to a meagre two in 2007.
Fast forward seventeen years, and the economic scene is highly favourable with near-total employment. Thus arises the question: how could a right-wing party set itself apart in such circumstances? The consensus points to them beginning by launching a scathing attack on what they perceive as left-wing-leaning entities such as non-profit organisations, the proponents of the Hate Speech Bill, and notably, the Green Party. This includes, but not limited, to large sections of other parties colloquially termed as the “woke gallery”.
Promising early indications can already be seen, as the notion of a “single, un-screened, military-age man” has shifted from fringe right-wing jargon to parliamentary discourse. This was seen just before the winter holidays when the six-member Rural Independent Group proposed a Dáil motion concerning “un-screened single men”. The once unimaginable debates over women in the workforce or contraception slowly fade into the past, making room for immigration as the new battleground – all the more pressing as the world watches on.