Since the election in February a number of TD have been appearing in the Dáil chamber in casual dress. Most notable have been the group of leftwing indepdent TDs including Richard Boyd-Barrett, Mick Wallace and Ming Flanagan. The Irish Times states that:
“Mr. Boyd-Barrett often wears jeans in the Dáil chamber and shirts not tucked in, while Mr Flanagan wears his shirts buttoned up to the neck and out over his trousers. Wexford TD Mick Wallace brings a dash of colour to the chamber with his trademark pink shirts. None of the men wear formal jackets.”
Their informality has been added to that of Gerry Adams who, according to the same paper “often takes Leaders’ Questions without a jacket and with his sleeves rolled up”.
The Dáil committee dealing with procedural matters has now proposed a dress code requiring formal dress for deputies (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0708/breaking36.html).
The reaction of the independent TDs has been depressingly predictable. Independent Kildare TD Catherine Murphy stated that "Dress codes don’t necessarily mean people do things with the right motivation.” While Richard Boyd Barrett thought that to focus on this issue in the context of the economic crisis showed that the government were “clowns”.
These are, of course, straw man arguments. No one is suggesting that a dress code in the Dáil will ensure that TDs always act with correct motivations. Furthermore, the Committee of Procedure and Privileges is not tasked with dealing with the economic crisis but with proper running of the Dáil so there is no net loss of attention on economic affairs involved in its decision.
Indeed the people who are in fact most focused on what people wear in the Dáil are those who, like Mr. Boyd-Barrett, deliberately flout the dress code in order to indulge their juvenile desire to be seen as rebellious.
There are, of course, more important issues in political life today and in Sinn Féin’s case, this is hardly the first or most serious incidence of their failure to respect the institutions of the State. However, I think the approach of these standard bearers of leftwing politics shows a broader problem with the characteristics of much of left wing politics in the West since the 1960s.
What Mr. Boyd Barrett et al seem to be incapable of understanding are the reasons underlying a parliamentary dress code, namely a desire to show respect for an institution that is of immense importance to the society we all share.
In Irish and Western culture, one way of demonstrating such respect and generating the kind of solemnity that should attach to proceedings in a venue with functions as important as those of a parliament, is to wear particular kinds of clothing.
Even if they personally consider jeans to be a sign of the utmost respect, that is not the point. The point of the dress code in a national parliament is that it relates to collective notions of what is respectful.
The solemnity and respect that comes from sober business attire does not come from any inherent qualities of the fibres used but from the cultural significance attached to such clothing. That is why, there are often dress codes for events like weddings. The guests collectively indicate their respect for the importance of the occasion by wearing clothing that is agreed to be respectful.
Similarly, Dáil deputies, by dressing formally, indicate that they realise the importance of the institution in which they serve to broader society. People watching Dáil proceedings are also encouraged to revere and take seriously the institutions of our democracy by seeing TDs dressed in a solemn and respectful manner.
Since the 1960s the message of a section the left has been that to express respect for collective institutions through adhering to collective norms is hierarchical, elitist and reactionary.
This has been seen in many countries. In Germany for example, since the 1968 student protests, traditional robes fell out of use in graduation ceremonies in many universities. Similarly, in 2009, the Speaker of the British House of Commons dispensed with the ornate cloak worn by his predecessors in order, he said to promote the 'accessibility" of Parliament.
Although those opposing such traditional practices often characterise themselves as left wing, the agenda they have endorsed is actually profoundly rightwing. A major element of rightwing politics since the 1980s has involved an attack on the idea of the public. This was underpinned by Mrs. Thatcher’s idea that “there is no such thing as society” and that accordingly as much of life as possible should be privatised and deregulated so that individual preferences acting through the market mechanism could determine outcomes rather than collective ideals.
Richard Boyd Barrett and his colleagues are adopting the same approach. Ignoring the fact that there is a collective norm around dress codes, they want to be able to wear what they want or what they personally feel is respectful. In essence, they want to privatise a collective cultural arrangement aimed at maintaining respect for our shared institutions and replace it with an arrangement where individual choice is the only relevant criterion.
Collective institutions, traditions and norms can sometimes be oppressive. The error of the 1960s counter cultural generation, like that of leftists like Richard Boyd Barrett, was to show rather indiscriminate hostility to them.
Traditional robes add to the gaiety of university ceremonies and help to shore up society’s respect for learning and knowledge. The ornate robe of the Speaker of the House of Commons helps people to link the current legislature to the long history of Britain’s parliamentary institutions. In short, in the case of many traditional collective arrangements, removing them in the name of 'accessibility' adds nothing and subtracts something.
More importantly, by refusing to wear anything but what accords with their personal views and tastes, Richard Boyd Barrett and his colleagues implicitly undermine the very idea of the public. The idea that, in certain contexts important to our shared life, we put aside our some of our individual desires to work together and to respect our common institutions, is vital to a healthy pluralist society.
It is this idea that is undermined by the refusal of TDs to adhere to a dress code that requires deputies to wear clothing that shows respect for the institutions of our democracy when carrying out their functions.
The role of rebel can be enjoyable and is one that is necessary at times. However, once one leaves one’s teenage years, most people come to realise that it is also a role that needs to be embraced selectively. Mr. Boyd Barrett et al would do well to reflect on whether their desire to be seen as rebels in fact undermines the collective institutions and values that their leftwing orientation should seek to promote.
No comments:
Post a Comment