Times Change

Supporters of the system were sure the tide of events had turned in their favour. Stalinism had collapsed. The command economies were in ruins. George Bush had announced a new world order. The people of central and eastern Europe were advised to look farther east. There, in the tiger economies of Japan, South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia, they would see the market at work in ideal conditions: low labour costs and freedom from regulation. If history was dead and the left redundant, this was the future; it was a notion that chimed with Thatcherite times. 
  
But it was an illusion, one that was accepted by some who had always opposed anything to do with the state; a con-job bought by others as a quick fix: a shortcut to the top. The years since Fukuyama's pronouncement have been littered with the evidence of failure: in South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, Japan and now Russia. Not failure, mind you, for the super-rich, nor for the bandit capitalists, but for those left at their mercy and at the mercy of uncontrolled and potentially uncontrollable market forces. 

We, too, were encouraged to share the illusion. That is what a lot of the talk about 'Celtic Tigers' really means. It is a cosy local name for the global capitalism that has begun to unravel with disastrous results in the Far East and with consequences not yet realised in this part of the globe. Here too, the evidence of failure characteristic of market economics is already visible, though not on a scale to compare with what used to be, in every sense, Suharto's Indonesia. We have our own winners and losers - even if those who sleep in doorways occupy far less of our media space than the sale of a house for almost £6m. 

We have our urban communities that are disconnected economically and socially from the rest of society and where poverty is compounded by low skills, indifferent health, drug abuse, endemic crime, money-lending and a creaking public transport system. The evidence of deepening division runs on, through lists of inextricably linked issues: housing, jobs, education, training and literacy, taxes, the use and abuse of public funds, public services, political accountability and freedom of information. 
  
Meanwhile, ours is also a modern and dynamic society, but it is governed by a party political superstructure which has hardly changed since it was created in response to very different needs in the 1920s. It is incapable of solving the deep economic, social and environmental problems that face our people. It is increasingly exposed as venal and corrupt and it has fewer and fewer connections with the people and organisations active in civil society. People are refusing to participate in party politics: parties lose members, fewer and fewer turn out for elections, some resort to private or legal means to solve their problems, others engage in single-issue community action. 

But politics and politicians are not criticised only for valid reasons; they are also criticised, regularly and insidiously, by people intolerant of anyone who might inhibit their personal interests or insist on wider responsibilities to local or national communities. 

If we had indeed reached the end of history - the point at which there could be no improvement in our social, economic or political conditions - we would certainly be in a hopeless state. And not only the left, with its aim of achieving an egalitarian society, but the idea of society itself would be redundant. This is not the end of history. And we need urgently to construct a political and economic response to a system which widens relentlessly the gap in living standards between rich and poor in Ireland and between rich and poor nations of the world. 
  
The driving force in global capitalism is a competitive system which is both dynamic and innovative. No-one denies that: in fact, as some eminent critics have acknowledged lately, Marx was among the first to recognise the nature and potential of capitalism. But the system also promotes greedy individualism on an unprecedented scale. It spreads insecurity at all levels of society: some would argue that such insecurity is one of its essential features. And it exploits people and resources the world over. Because profit is its primary aim, it dismisses - and is willing to sacrifice - any social or community structure from which profit cannot be made, or which gets in the way. In the process people are isolated and alienated, human relationships are undermined or destroyed. 
  
All of this is opposed by the left. But the role of the left is not, and must not be, confined to opposition. The challenge that faces us is to bring into being a creative, egalitarian society which provides for the needs and aspirations of all the people. This will not be achieved in opposition, nor by opposition alone. Nor will we succeed by accepting that, as some economists suggest, for us the choice is between equity and efficiency - our role, as some political commentators believe, being restricted to a prop for some administration of the right. 
  
Our mission on the left should be to create a radical, participatory political movement in Ireland, linked to similar movements in Europe. Its aim should be to redirect the dynamism and innovation in the economy to bring about social and economic justice, to protect the environment and to make sure the scarce resources of the planet are wisely used. 

Pessimists, cynics and opponents of politics say we are incapable of change. This is not so. The referendums held North and South on the Belfast Agreement have shown how most people are willing to accept new ideas and new constitutional arrangements in the interests of peace and stability. And since both British and Irish identities have been asserted - and accepted - there is space for the development of post-nationalist politics. 

The national question is no longer a legitimate source of division between the civil war parties in the Republic. Nor is it, as it once was, an obstacle to the development of the left in Ireland as a whole. As a first step we need to create a credible political formation which will include Labour and Democratic Left and others, such as trade unionists and community activists, on an agreed platform. 

The political objective should be the achievement of a left-led government. The inequality, disadvantage and poverty that co-exists with wealth on an unprecedented scale will not be ended by the left bickering on the sidelines. It will be ended only by transforming our ideas, our politics and our organisations so that, armed with our socialist values and credible policies, we can win the mandate to make economics serve all the people equally. 

Proinsias de Rossa is TD for Dublin North-West and Leader of Democratic Left  
  
*Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man, London 1992. 
  
  
Top of page            Back to Contents             Times Change Home