Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The writer is an FT contributing editor
Populism is not the sole property of the far right. Europe’s anti-establishment tide has favoured anti-immigrant populists, but it has also lifted the fortunes of those on distant shores of the left. In Germany the success of the rightist AfD has been accompanied by gains for Die Linke, the successor to East Germany’s communists. In France the challenge to the ancien regime from Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National is mirrored by Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s mobilisation of the far left.
There are points where the two extremes meet. Hard-working people, both sides argue, have been dispossessed by the elites. Far right and far left strike a nationalist pose. Both want to repatriate economic power lost to globalisation. The EU is at best a source of suspicion.
In the UK, Nigel Farage’s Reform party professes at once to believe in free markets and rails against multinational corporations. It wants state control of key utilities such as water. The preference for the national over the international reaches beyond business. To a greater or lesser degree, Nato is deemed by the populists to bear responsibility for “provoking” Vladimir Putin’s war of aggression against Ukraine.
Catherine Connolly’s successful bid for the Irish presidency at the head of a loose coalition spanning the left and radical left caught the temper of the times. True, her victory had uniquely Irish features. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, the centrist parties of Ireland’s governing coalition, fumbled their choice of candidates. Jim Gavin, the former Gaelic football player and manager representing Fianna Fáil, was forced to withdraw before polling day. The republican Sinn Féin, which has recast itself as a populist left party, backed Connolly. The lawyer turned independent MP is a skilled communicator. Softly-spoken, her claim to authenticity feels, well, authentic.
For all that, the vote fitted a wider pattern. Disenchantment with mainstream politics saw young people in particular look for a radical alternative. Many in Dublin drew a parallel with the initial popularity of Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of Britain’s Labour party.
Connolly deployed the populist play book: keep it simple. The challenges may be complex but progressive principles can cut through. Throw out the old and all will be well. Solving Ireland’s acute housing shortage is just a matter of political will. (She is right that Ireland really does need to provide affordable housing for the young). Health and welfare services under strain can be repaired with public spending. And if funding is a problem, Ireland can find savings from defence.
Connolly put collective defence, or rather its supposed lack of utility, front and centre of her campaign. Beyond strong support for a Palestinian state, a long-standing national stance, her worldview is best described as looking away. Connolly says that she is not opposed to Ireland’s EU membership, but her message is tinged with scepticism. She has condemned Putin’s war but is critical of Nato “militarisation”. Europe’s relationship with Nato through its Partnership for Peace programme is more a partnership for war. Britain and the US are not to be trusted. Germany’s defence build-up in response to Russian aggression reminds her of the Nazis during the 1930s.
The president-elect has an audience. Irish neutrality has been lodged deep in Ireland’s national psyche since the then Free State broke free of British colonial rule in 1922. Refusing to join Britain in the fight against Hitler in the second world war gave definition to independence. So, in spite of intense pressure from the US, did Dublin’s refusal to join Nato. At less than one per cent of national income, Ireland’s defence spending lags behind its partners in the EU.
Connolly takes the pacifist tilt further. “We [Ireland] do not need an army”. Like Corbyn, her answer to conflict is negotiation. Ireland, she insisted during the campaign, must keep its “triple lock” on the dispatch of troops overseas — approval from the UN as well by government and parliament. She strongly opposes the EU’s efforts to build its defence capabilities even as the US shrinks its European security umbrella.
The flaw, of course, is that the post-American world is a much more dangerous place — for Europe and for Ireland. Putin has chosen force over dialogue. He demands surrender rather than negotiation. And his ambitions reach beyond Ukraine. The Russian surveillance vessels now operating off Ireland’s west coast are mapping the vulnerability of the subsea transatlantic cables that are vital to prosperity and security. For now it has been left to local fisherman to keep the Russian navy out of Irish waters.
Connolly prefers the politics of simple answers. For the populist right, migrants are the scapegoat. For the left, the enemies are big corporations and the “military-industrial complex”. The sleight of hand is obvious. When Connolly declares that Ireland has no need of a military, she leaves unsaid the assumption that the US and Europe will underwrite Irish security.
That might have been true a decade or so ago. But Donald Trump is now far from alone in his criticism of free-riders. EU governments, facing their own budgetary constraints, are impatient of paying for Ireland’s defence.
Micheál Martin’s coalition government can take comfort from the fact that the Irish constitution puts firm constraints on the power of the presidency. Connolly will be able to speak but not act. It would be foolish though to ignore the significance of her victory. Populists prosper when those holding the levers of power are judged to have failed.
Read the full article here