After all of the side-shows and the sparring, the Presidential race is finally underway. It is remarkable to think that when the office was last due to be filled, seven years ago, there was no contest.

That was a reflection of the widespread feeling that the then incumbent Mary McAleese had done a very good job. But it was also a comment on the lack of ambition among the major political parties at the time. Ireland was perceived as an enormously successful country, with a booming economy – not least by Irish people themselves. Everybody, it was assumed, accepted the status quo. There was only one version of reality to which we all had to subscribe. Why would anybody want to change anything?
How different it all feels seven bruising years on. The fantasy has been exposed. We – or most of us at any rate – bought into a market-led, monetarist, materialistic view of the world that was made of match sticks. It has gone up in flames. We are now searching amid the debris for a possible way forward. And the Presidential campaign has become a part of that search.
Last time out, there was no opposition to Mary McAleese, who was therefore automatically re-elected. This time there is a record number of candidates in the field, seven in all.
During the final run-in to the deadline for qualification as a candidate, there was a lot of hand wringing about the procedures involved. Should the support of 20 members of the Oireachtas really be necessary? Is the support of four county councils sufficient as an alternative route towards endorsement? Should potential candidates be put in a position where they have to grovel in front of councillors? Might it make sense to allow candidates with an agreed number of signatures of support from the general public – say 20,000 – to run?
My own gut instinct would be to let whoever wants to go forward put their name on the ballot paper. There can be only one winner, and anyone who is daft enough to have a go, with no political pedigree or public standing to support them, will almost certainly end up losing the entire cost of the campaign. Well, if they want to, let them. More particularly, the restriction that no one under the age of 35 can go forward is absurd.
That said, it is a fact that the process on this occasion has facilitated prospective candidates rather than obstructing them. David Norris, Dana, Mary Davis and Sean Gallagher have all qualified to participate by getting the support of county councils. To have seven people of very diverse backgrounds and political leanings going head to head is, in fact, a relatively healthy result.
Not that the process has been without considerable drama. David Norris was at the centre of much of it. He came under intense pressure following the revelation of letters of support he had written on behalf of his former lover, Ezra Nawi, when the latter was on trial for statutory rape of a 15 year old Palestinian youth.
Senator Norris has played an important role in the evolution of Irish society. He was a key figure in the ultimately successful campaign for gay rights. He also was, on occasion, critical of the role of Israel in the Middle East. In the context, it is possible to speculate that there was a significant lobby, both at home and abroad, waiting for the opportunity to damage him. The Nawi letters provided these reactionary interests with that opportunity and they went for it with a vengeance.
It is not an issue on which a prospective Presidential candidate could have expected to avoid criticism. There are many intelligent, liberal people who also believe that it was a serious misjudgement on his part to attempt to intervene in the way that he did in the Nawi affair. And yet the attack on David Norris felt essentially mean-spirited and reactionary. That he was able to fight back and get on the ticket is a good thing.
The widespread fulminations surrounding Martin McGuinness’ entry into the contest were also curious. When it came to their selection of a candidate, Sinn Féin had a number of options. Someone like Mary Lou McDonald, for example, would have been a relatively safe choice, and she might even have polled well. But clearly the party believe that there is an extraordinary opportunity here to do even better – and so they chose one of the top men. It can only be that they believed that there was a chance of winning.
They cannot have imagined that questions would not be asked about Martin McGuinness’ past in the IRA. They must have calculated the ground was fertile enough to make it worth the risk: imagine the extraordinary situation if indeed one of the North’s most controversial Republican characters were to be President of Ireland during the centenary celebrations of the 1916 rising?
The bottom line is that this is a democracy. The rules are there and under those rules Matin McGuinness was able to attract sufficient support to secure a nomination. In the final analysis, shouting and roaring that it is an affront achieves nothing.
Candidates should be put under scrutiny. They are open to criticism on the basis of their record. Commentators and opponents alike are entitled to seek truthful answers on issues of importance. But claiming that any one candidate doesn’t have a right to stand when they have qualified is absurd. He has put himself before the people. His name is on the ballot paper. The voters will decide.
What do the individual candidates stand for? Do they understand the role and functions of the President? Have they the kind of experience that the position of Head of State demands? To what extent can they be trusted? What sort of a Presidency do they envisage? How will they represent Ireland, at home or abroad? Do they have the intelligence and gravitas necessary to carry out that function effectively and in a way that will reflect credit on the country and on the people? And have they the capacity to realise even some of their ambitions? These are the questions that have to be asked.
With just three weeks to go before polling day, this much we can say for certain: it is shaping up to be a fascinating contest.