It's time to decide on role of president
MICHEAL Martin quietly settled two questions yesterday, both related to the presidential election which will take place in the autumn. He quashed any speculation about Bertie Ahern's candidature, and he gave Fianna Fail deputies leave to join, if they so wish, in nominating Senator David Norris for the office.
One must doubt whether the first issue ever needed to be taken seriously.
Mr Ahern's arm's-length relationship with the English language notwithstanding, his position has always been fairly clear. He was not seeking the Fianna Fail nomination, but neither would he rule it out. Now Mr Martin has ruled it out for him.
No Fianna Fail leader could have done otherwise, and least of all could the present leader have supported the former Taoiseach while still trying to draw together the tattered strands of his once-great party.
Once upon a time, Mr Ahern was the most popular politician in the land.
No longer.
The part he played in the economic crash is the subject of satire; his performances at the Mahon Tribunal hearings the subject of hilarity. His hand-picked candidates have been rejected in his own former Dail constituency, Dublin Central. Fianna Fail's inner circles are giving serious thought to the proposition that they should not contest the presidential election at all for fear of another drubbing at the voters' hands.
Whether with this possibility in mind or for other reasons, Mr Martin yesterday announced the freeing of his Oireachtas members to nominate Mr Norris.
This piece of liberalism is welcome in itself. But it also raises the issue of the oddity of the nomination process, and suggests that the time is ripe to discuss the process and the presidency itself.
An aspirant candidate needs the support of 20 Oireachtas members or four county councils. Senator Norris appears confident of reaching one or other target.
Should he fail, it would mean the exclusion from the race of one of the most prominent public figures in the country. That would be absurd.
Much more absurd is that an intense (if mainly invisible and undeclared) contest is in progress for the highest office in the land, while most citizens have no idea what they want from a President. Do we want a mere figurehead, or something more?
If we want something more, what should be its nature and how can we ensure that it conforms to the Constitution? We should decide on these questions before deciding on the individual to hold the office.
End text book rip-off
THIS autumn, parents will be paying up to €400 for textbooks for a son or daughter starting first or fifth year in secondary school, and €100 in the case of a child starting primary school. For some, at a time of such distress and pressure for families, the bill will seem the last straw. And with the last straw could come what middle-class families would regard as the last resort.
Audry Deane of the St Vincent de Paul Society says that increasing numbers of parents cannot afford to buy the textbooks. They have to seek the society's help.
Why must they spend so much money -- money they can ill afford -- on this item?
In the first place, textbooks are expensive, and no wonder, considering the high standards of production. But secondly, there are far too many of them. New editions constantly appear, ostensibly for the sake of necessary updating but very often with only tiny changes which add little or nothing to a reader's knowledge.
And what amounts to a necessary update?
It might be argued, for example, that a geography book should reflect changes in population, production or income.
But this could be achieved by inserting a single slip of paper. And there are other means of easing the parents' burden without harming learning. In most countries, school books are free to pupils. Must we accept that our battered society cannot afford even that?
0 comments:
Post a Comment