Ethics in Politics

I don't want to get into party politics, particularly with the election coming up, and I would stress that I don't support any particular party - I tend to vote for individuals that I like and respect rather than vote on party lines.

My query is this, am I the only one that is disturbed at the acceptance by the voting public of issues of questionable behaviour by politicians? Playing fast and loose with funding, or other dodgy behaviour, doesn't seem to be any kind of deterrent to seeking and getting the votes of the population. Issues that would be resigning matters in other countries seem to be ok with us. Why is that? Are we all crooks and we want our representatives to reflect our own behaviour, or is blind loyalty to party politics more important than morals?

As I said this is not a party issue, and I don't want to be seen to be bashing any particular party. Michael Lowry topped the poll when he was thrown out of Fine Gael for the Dunnes affair. The current debacle where Bertie Ahern is trickling out information about money he received (and where one of the donors seems set to be reappointed as chairman of a public body), doesn't seem to be affecting his own chances of retaining his seat. In any other country he would have had to resign, but not here. In Roscommon Leitrim, John Ellis looks set to take a seat, despite the fact that many of the voters lost money when his meat plant folded and he left them holding bouncy cheques -- that they would continue to vote for him defies logic in my view.

What does it take for a politician to do the honourable thing in Ireland and put his hands up and admit that he is not worthy of offering himself (or herself) for re-election? Just how much are we willing to put up with?

Our politicians reflect the ethical standards of the people they represent. In many ways they exceed the ethical standards of the people they represent.

Can you tell us what country's politicians have higher standards?
Not the UK or France or USA for sure. We don't sell chemical weapons to dictators (UK) or nuclear reactors to fundamentalist Islamic states (France) or invade countries for no good reason (USA).
The list could go on and on for each of those countries and any other you care to mention.
The Dutch and Nordic countries are no better when you scratch the surface.

Good point, but in other countries at least they resign or are sacked if caught blatantly with their hands in the till; not so here.

Even taking the point about lack of ethics in the bigger picture with the USA, UK etc, does it have to be like that? We have plenty of honest politicians who have a genuine public service ethic, but we persist in electing the crooks and conmen as well. Why? If an employer caught an employee stealing from him, he wouldn't promote the crook, he would fire him. In politics it seems, no such norms apply.

I think it’s a bit more complex than that. UK politicians resign if they are caught having an affair but if they are involved with a company that is killing people in some far flung corner of the world then that’s okay.
I think many of the politicians that have taken the odd backhander also had/have a strong public service ethic. People who do nixers and don’t file them in a tax return are also guilty of tax evasion but that doesn’t mean that they don’t volunteer in their local GGA club or do meals on wheels. I am not for a moment excusing the behaviour of some of our politicians but I’m slow to cast the first stone.

UK poilticians do appear to resign more readily than their Irish equivalents if they've been discovered not to be adhering to certain political standards. It's unlikely that Tony Blair would have survived similar relevations to those that emerged about Bertie last year.

If that's a reflection on our respective populations then it may have something to do with the Catholic/Protestant ethos of both countries.

polaris said:

UK poilticians do appear to resign more readily than their Irish equivalents if they've been discovered not to be adhering to certain political standards. It's unlikely that Tony Blair would have survived similar relevations to those that emerged about Bertie last year.

Click to expand...

So what Bertie did is worse than getting your secret service to make stuff up to justify why you invaded another country? It's worse than being the target of a criminal investigation about payments for honours? I’m no fan of Bertie but I think the grass just seems greener…

I think Bertie should answer the questions re the €30,000. He is looking to be re-elected - in other words he asking us to keep him in his job. If I went to a job interview and was asked a question and I gave the answer that I would reply to it when I get the job. Do you think I would get the job? I think not.

Megan said:

I think Bertie should answer the questions re the €30,000. He is looking to be re-elected - in other words he asking us to keep him in his job. If I went to a job interview and was asked a question and I gave the answer that I would reply to it when I get the job. Do you think I would get the job? I think not.

Click to expand...

I agree that he should come clean but to suggest that this is the only country where politicians don't resign is stretching it.

auto320 said:

Just how much are we willing to put up with?

Click to expand...

I can't escape the feeling that we are pretty much faced with a Hobson's choice, one crowd being incompetent and the other being incompetent(and corrupt).

"Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."
George Bernard Shaw.

I wonder how neutral our representives would be had they a military and resources similar to the UK and USA?

does it have to be like that? We have plenty of honest politicians who have a genuine public service ethic, but we persist in electing the crooks and conmen as well. Why? If an employer caught an employee stealing from him, he wouldn't promote the crook, he would fire him.

Click to expand...

Auto320, I've long had the very same questions you started the thread with. I think theres an element of tribal loyalty at a local level at work in places where candidates such as Lowry and Cooper Flynn were reelected despite being disgraced.
Personally I dont understand it when it is blatant because to me at the very least its unpatriotic and divisive. They always have the choice to elect some other more honest local who will be loyal to their area and it really surprises me people dont understand that justice has to at the very least be seen to be done which is why uk politicians who are caught red handed usually lead by example and resign immediately.

Megan said:

I think Bertie should answer the questions re the €30,000. He is looking to be re-elected - in other words he asking us to keep him in his job. If I went to a job interview and was asked a question and I gave the answer that I would reply to it when I get the job. Do you think I would get the job? I think not.

Click to expand...

I'm not old enough to remember the Haughey Era very well and I know very little about political norms in a public debating situation so please forgive my ignorance when I ask the following.
Can anyone tell me what is PJ O'Mara's role? Who is he? and why does a PJ O'Mara butt in and try to silence Vincent Browne when Bertie was questioned ? And why was he allowed to do so?
Bertie is usually well capable of fighting his own corner. The fact PJ O'Mara seemed to be allowed to jump in at times to help him is proof enough to me that sadly Bertie was struggling to produce clearcut answers for the questions posed. I'm just a neutral bystander and this is my first impression of this that even the atmosphere surrounding the questioning was definitely a bit shady . Is this the correct perception to have ?

Amygdala said:

"Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."
George Bernard Shaw.

Click to expand...

Or as H. L. Mencken put it "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."