The Race for the Áras

by Tom Reddy

  Browne might be viewed by some as an eccentric presence in the TV news arena, yet television’s Torquemada often makes for compelling viewing.

  He was at his best here gleefully roasting all seven candidates over the spit, having first basted them in his unique concoction of spittle and venom.

  Stacey went on to give the programme a rarely dispensed award of four out of five stars.

  The debate got off to a slow start as Mary Davis repeated the claim made at her launch earlier in the day that Fine Gael had been paying a polling company to road-test negative messages about her. Gay Mitchell denied any knowledge of such polling. ‘I know of no such thing … I’ve been the subject of negative campaigning myself; I took it on the chin.’ The word was picked up by Norris, who said he would never campaign negatively; it then moved on to Dana, who talked about people watching the programme who were in negative equity. She later went on to talk about the bank guarantee scheme, until Higgins cut her off, saying, ‘The President can do nothing about that now.’

  Mitchell took the lead in the debate, launching an attack on McGuinness, querying him about his past as a member of the IRA and ‘pretending’ that he drew the average industrial wage, and claiming that he was not the Sinn Féin candidate. He said McGuinness was being disingenuous: he took a full salary, retained an industrial wage but gave the rest of the money to his party’s ‘propaganda machine’. ‘Martin goes on with this propaganda [about his income]. Do you know how much money I gave to Trócaire last year, Martin? Why didn’t you give it to Trócaire? You gave it to your propaganda machine.’

  As the tensions between the candidates became more heated, Mitchell called on McGuinness to be open about his claims about where his wage was directed and said that truth was central to restoring confidence in the institutions of the state. And, he added, the voting public needed to have confidence in a candidate. McGuinness replied: ‘I have made available my bank account to the media so they can look at it and see what money has been put into it by Sinn Féin. Gay will get a big shock when he sees it.’

  McGuinness showed his media skills and resilience in the face of criticism. ‘For some reason the people behind Gay have decided that in order to make him relevant to the campaign he has to attack me,’ he said. He also claimed that ‘nobody in the street’ was exercised about his former membership of the IRA.

  Browne now took over and asked McGuinness about his salary, about not being the Sinn Féin candidate in the election and about his membership, or not, of the IRA since 1974. Referring to his third question, Browne said, ‘People have the right to know what your role was in the republican movement as [if elected] you’ll be the personification of this state.’ McGuinness responded that he had not been a member of the IRA since 1974 but that he had never distanced himself from the IRA and had always engaged with the IRA, which had resulted in the ceasefire.

  Browne countered that everyone had heard about how Garda commissioners, the British intelligence service and ministers for justice all believed he was a member of the IRA after 1974—but, of course, McGuinness might not see them as sympathetic. He reached down below his desk and theatrically brandished a copy of The Provisional IRA by Patrick Bishop and Eamonn Mallie, which Browne said was sympathetic to McGuinness but whose text asserted that he was a member of the IRA after 1974.

  Then he reached down again and produced another book, Bandit Country: The IRA and South Armagh by Toby Harnden. Then, to snorts of laughter from the media pack in the adjoining canteen, he produced book after book, like a magician pulling rabbits out of a hat, all asserting McGuinness’s recent membership of the IRA. They were, in order of appearance: Martin McGuinness: From Guns to Government by Liam Clarke and Kathryn Johnston, The Trouble with Guns: Republican Strategy and the Provisional IRA by Malachi O’Doherty, Sinn Féin: A Hundred Turbulent Years by Brian Feeney, The Informer by Seán O’Callaghan, The Long War: The IRA and Sinn Féin by Brendan O’Brien, and finally A Secret History of the IRA by Ed Moloney, who had extensive contacts in the IRA.

  Vincent Browne has been a journalist since 1968. He was Northern news editor of the Irish Press group from 1970 to 1973 and with Independent Newspapers from 1974 to 1979 and founded the investigative magazine Magill in 1977. He was editor of the Sunday Tribune from 1983 to 1994 and a broadcaster with RTE from 1996 to 2007, and while presenting ‘Tonight with Vincent Browne’ on TV3 was also writing columns for the Irish Times and the Sunday Business Post.

  A senior and experienced journalist with substantial credentials, Browne stated that, aside from the books, which some might think were biased, ‘I have reported from Northern Ireland during my time as a journalist; justice ministers have said it, authors have said it, gardaí have said it: I know you were a member of the IRA, Martin. How come that we are all so wrong?’

  ‘Because some people jump to conclusions,’ said McGuinness, who criticised some of the authors as hostile to Sinn Féin and its participation in the peace process. He singled out Liam Clarke and Kathryn Johnston’s book for two factual errors about other people called McGuinness who were not even relatives.

  But Browne continued, saying that he had a lot of regard for his work, his political substance and contribution to the peace process, which was a ‘substantial achievement’, but, he asserted, he had spoken to his contacts in the IRA and people very close to him. ‘I know you were in the IRA up to three, four, five years ago,’ he said. ‘If people believe you are lying about this, how do they know you won’t lie about lots of other things when you are elected President?’

  Unlike Browne, who was passionate in delivering his argument, McGuinness’s face remained unresponsive, his demeanour impassive.

  The people of Ireland are not stupid, and the people of Ireland are well capable of judging my contribution to Irish politics in the round. The media are exercised about this issue, political opponents are exercised about this issue. Nobody is exercised on the street about that at all. I am not telling lies about a substantive issue in my life. The people of Derry see me as someone who has done everything in my power to bring about an end to the vicious cycle of conflict.

  He cited his role in the peace process and more recently as Northern Ireland Minister for Education and Deputy First Minister. ‘I have risked my life,’ he asserted, in becoming involved in the peace process. ‘That’s how people will judge me.’

  Mitchell weighed in again. ‘I also accept that Martin McGuinness contributed to the peace process—listen, we wouldn’t have had the problem without them.’

  The debate moved on, with regular squabbling, interruptions and cross-talking as the candidates jostled to be heard.

  Browne—who is also a practising barrister—singled out Norris for a forensic examination after he spoke of the pride he would have, if elected, in reading out the Proclamation of the Irish Republic outside the GPO in 2016. ‘Talking about cherishing the children …’ said Browne, seizing his cue. He said that Norris was ‘equivocal’ and ‘ambiguous’ about sex between an older man and a boy. ‘You have opposed the idea of an age of consent,’ he accused.

  ‘That’s not true,’ said Norris, warning Browne not to repeat untruths about him.

  ‘People are really apprehensive that you are ambiguous on this issue,’ Browne continued.

  Not so, asserted Norris. ‘I stand totally behind the law. I have said repeatedly, time after time, that I abhor with every fibre of my being the abuse of children—sexual, emotional and psychological.’

  But Browne was relentless. ‘People are further apprehensive that you refuse to release the letters—on grounds that most of us think are highly suspicious.’

  ‘You have a suspicious nature, Vincent. I think the viewing public know that. As Martin said about another issue, the people have moved on: there is no traction out there. I challenge you to come with me to Limerick, Kilkenny. In Galway, today in Cork …’

  ‘You’re talking down the clock,’ Browne interrupted. ‘You said a few days ago that you had got leg
al advice that it would be improper or illegal to disclose the letters you have written. From whom did you get legal advice?’

  ‘That is an extraordinary question for you to ask me, in my opinion,’ said Norris, appearing to be taken aback. As Browne continued asking the question, he responded: ‘Can I just say again, this is all bar-stool stuff, resurrected up from the past.’

  ‘David, please answer the question. From whom did you get legal advice?’

  ‘Is that one of these questions that you regularly produce that make very good television but seem to fly out of the top of your head?’

  ‘From whom did you get that advice?’

  Norris said he had answered the question, but no, he hadn’t, Browne insisted, and he repeated it again and again as Norris stonewalled.

  ‘I think, Vincent, that I’ve answered all the questions on that, and we’ve moved on.’

  ‘Some people think you’ve made that up,’ claimed Browne.

  ‘I haven’t made that up. Are you accusing me of lying?’ said Norris, his voice rising.

  ‘I wrote to people in the law faculty at Tel Aviv University, and I asked was there a plausible reason, was there a legal obstacle to your disclosing these letters, and only if you named the person who was the victim or if you revealed what happened in in-camera proceedings, there was no such disqualification or obstacle,’ said Browne, pulling another rabbit out of the hat that had previously held the McGuinness library.

  They continued to talk across each other, with Norris responding: ‘I am not a lawyer. You have some legal training, I gather; I was an academic; but I do find it unusual that you were able to get a considered view in the space of a few hours. We all know lawyers, we all know academics. When doctors differ, patients die, when lawyers differ you’re in a real quandary … You claim to have got advice in a matter of hours.’

  ‘That’s right, I did, yes,’ said Browne, unflinching.

  ‘Let’s leave it there and move on and talk about my record. My record stands …’

  ‘Is there some howler in these letters that discloses further ambiguity on your part about sex between adult males and minors?’ asked Browne.

  ‘That is quite untrue. My conscience is clear. I’ve been an open book all my life,’ replied Norris, who again invited Browne to join him on a canvass and see at first hand what issues were important to the people he was meeting.

  ‘And may I finally thank you. You were one of the many thousands of people who signed the petition to bring me back into the race, so thank you very much for that,’ said Norris, adding that it emphasised Browne’s impartiality.

  Browne and McGuinness chatted as they left the studio to attend the photo call in the foyer. Norris left directly, and for the first time many journalists could remember on the campaign trail, or in life, he avoided the media. All the other candidates stopped for a few words with the journalists, huddled under the tent canopy after the debate, but they had nothing new to add, except to embellish their messages. The one thing they all agreed on was that the format, with seven voices competing for space, was difficult, suggesting that none were as pleased with their performance as they’d hoped.

  The following morning the political media rated the performance of each of the candidates. Opinion was divided. Miriam Lord in the Irish Times:

  Overall, Michael D came across as the most reasoned and presidential and seemed content to let the other big hitters slug it out. Perhaps he was too low-key. Perhaps that was the plan.

  An intriguing debate, which threatened at times to descend into chaos but Browne managed to keep them all on the right side of civility.

  They all want to be inspirational. But were many inspired by what they saw? They speak of values and what they ‘can bring to the role.’ Ho hum.

  But while it was a bit fraught at times, none of them made a show of themselves. One or two quietly sank a little, others treaded water while Martin and Gay provided the turbulence.

  There have been worse campaigns. This one is trundling along nicely, like a soap opera.

  And it was a good night for Vincent too—savage and cuddly and daft, just the way his fans like it.

  And no, we can’t put him in the Áras. Ever.

  The Irish Daily Star put Browne on page 1: ‘Vincent is real debate winner.’

  Of the ‘Magnificent Seven’ the best on the night were McGuinness, Mitchell and Michael D. Higgins. David Norris was poor as was Dana who failed to get properly involved in the debate.

  Mitchell was rated 8/10. Brought entertainment to the debate. Wasn’t afraid to get stuck in. The terrier of the pack.

  McGuinness was rated 7/10—Hard as nails and impossible to ruffle—despite Vincent’s best efforts.

  Higgins—rated 6/10. Certainly the most polished of the candidates. He was well prepared and was on top of his game but again failed to get stuck in with other candidates. Davis recorded the same score—Very confident and assured. In general her arguments were well prepared but overall she failed to deliver any kind of a killer blow.

  Norris rated a 4/10. Came across as shouty, had nothing great to add to the debate and his pomposity did not serve him well. Gallagher scored a similar score—Didn’t add any spark to the debate. Failed to get stuck in and made too much of an issue of election literature and posters.

  Dana scored just three out of ten. She was hardly at the races at all. A case of All kinds of Nothing really.

  The Herald differed with its score card, rating Mitchell as the night’s winner.

  Along with Higgins, Mitchell’s knowledge of the role and powers of the President as laid down in the Constitution are light years ahead of the rest of the candidates.

  While his performance last night, which largely consisted of attacking McGuinness without having to dodge any bullets, was fair enough, it’s unlikely to overcome the public perception of him as spiky, impatient and lacking in the sense of humour department.

  Pat Stacey’s score card rated McGuinness, Davis and Gallagher at only 1 out of 10. Norris scored 2 out of 10 and Higgins 8 out of 10. Dana trailed again with nil. ‘Sage political analysts always claim that television debates don’t decide the outcome of elections. But after Vincent Browne’s cracking Big Presidential Debate onTV3 last night, the “experts” may have to rewrite the rule book.’

  Another Herald writer commented that Dana had failed to connect with anyone and had a poor outing.

  Mary Davis was rigid with tension and righteousness. She was one of the first to claim to know better than Vincent what the plain people of Ireland care about. In her case, the plain people of Ireland didn’t care how many boards she served on. David Norris’s plain people didn’t care about whether he published the clemency letters or not. And, unless I’m wrong, Martin McGuinness’s plain people didn’t give a sugar about his past.

  The online Independent (www.independent.ie) rated Higgins the winner, with a rating of 7 out of 10.

  He was quickest to get his spiel across about the need for a President who can restore trust. And there was an early dig at two of his rivals. He said there was a need for someone who understood what a president could do—Mary Davis had problems here before. And he said the president was not head of Bord Tractala or the IDA—a cut at Sean Gallagher.

  McGuinness, Davis and Norris scored 6 each, Gallagher and Mitchell 5 each, and Dana trailed at 4 out of 10.

  Gallagher’s main point was an appeal to the other candidates to have all candidate promotion letters paid for by the state and sent to each voter put into one envelope rather than have seven separate mailings. He said that Dana had responded to him, and then he challenged the other candidates to show leadership and go along with his plan. Davis said she would, but Mitchell said he wouldn’t. It would save €10 million, claimed Gallagher.

  But two weeks later Gallagher’s individual litir um thoghchán began dropping through letterboxes around the country. ‘Strong. Modern. Energetic. Positive. Let’s put our strengths to work,’ it said on the front pa
ge. His signed message on the other side read:

  Ireland is a great country. We are a strong and proud people. We have an entrepreneurial spirit. We have bright and well educated young people. We are creative, loved and respected internationally. What we need now is to believe in ourselves and we can only do this by working together.

  Across the top of page 1 the Irish Daily Mail wrote: ‘Vincent threw the book at McGuinness, and Michael D stood on a box …’ The paper’s political editor, Senan Molony, delivered his verdict: ‘Mr McGuinness spoke of respecting people’s traditions, and said he wanted a decade of reconciliation from 1912. Some seemed by the end to be reconciled to him. Winner: Martin McGuinness.’

  Inside, the paper editorialised: ‘Uninspiring debate.’

  But somehow, didn’t last night’s debate emphasise the emptiness of much of what is said and the lack of a coherent and inspiring message among all the candidates?

  Instead, we are viscerally absorbing an impression of their characters: from ponderous, earnest Seán Gallagher to wiry excitable Gay, to slick, ambitious Mary.

  Perhaps this is no bad way to choose—this election is, after all, essentially about character. But the heart sinks at yet another turgid spell at those seven matching lecterns.

  On the TV3 web site people were asked to vote for their favourite candidate, and 205,000 responded. McGuinness topped the poll, at 34 per cent, Norris came in second, with 19 per cent. Gallagher scored 15 per cent, Higgins 13 per cent, Mitchell 8 per cent, Dana 6 per cent and Davis 5 per cent.

  Columnist James Downey, writing in the Irish Independent, would say that Fianna Fáil ‘has effectively ceded its own position—humble enough, but enough of a base to offer some possibility of rebuilding—to Sinn Féin. And Sinn Féin is bent on completing the destruction of the party that dominated politics for so long and, ultimately, so disastrously.’