Voices
Robert Troy isn’t related to Helen, at least as far as we could determine. As well as being renowned for her beauty, his better known namesake was, if Homer is to be believed, obsessed by her public image. Robert must somehow have thought his was impervious to public opprobrium because, as the scale of his property portfolio dripped its way into double figures, he saw no reason to consider his status as a minister of government even though his non-declaration of most of his holdings pointed to a new definition of the term ‘untenable’.
*****
Robert Troy’s resignation, when it came, was weeks too late. It reflected not just poorly on him but also on the judgement of those who put him in office. More seriously, those who, with all their experience couldn’t see, from the very start of the controversy around his property interests, that his position as a minister in a government that has failed utterly to address the country’s housing crisis, could not be justified.
There are occasions when political scandals play out because they need to, times when the issues are nuanced, times when the backdrop is such that acting decisively is not possible or, perhaps could be unreasonable to those involved. This was not such a case.
I’ve had personal experience of just how unpleasant it is to be under public scrutiny; sometimes in the moment, it’s not as easy as it might appear to see things as they really are. That pressure is all the greater for anyone in public office and it is why media advisers – however they may be profiled by elements in the press – have such an important role to play in the management of emerging crises in any area of life.
I’ve been in situations where the siege mentality has resulted in poor decision-making as much because of a ‘fuck them’ attitude than out of any determination to avoid explaining the position
In the political world – where I worked for a period – wise counsel guides the elected politician or the public official to understand the complexities of their position relative to whatever turbulence has occurred. The priority should be and – in my knowledge of how most consultants approach their work – is to consider the needs of the client within the wider context of serving the public interest.
The primacy of public interest is because that is what public servants and politicians are employed to do: to serve us. This is precisely what our elected representatives pledge to do, so, in the event that there are questions over their probity, or the appropriateness of decisions taken, the imperative is to establish the truth and then act accordingly.
Most advisers approach whatever the issue is on just that basis – public first, skin of politician second – but often the cacophony of baying ‘independent’ commentators makes it more difficult for the cold, rational, assessment to take place.
I’ve been in situations where the siege mentality has resulted in poor decision-making as much because of a ‘fuck them’ attitude as of any determination to avoid explaining the position. Generally, in my experience, where – for whatever reasons – those in trouble often exacerbate their challenge it is on account of indecision. In the political arena, while proportionality matters, crises need to be dealt with comprehensively but also promptly.
*****
The complete lack of urgency in addressing the glaringly obvious problem Robert Troy’s undeclared property interests presented is astounding. The only reason would seem to be that the former minister has a difficulty with detail which, certainly when you’re under public scrutiny, makes it difficult to appear open. It also makes it difficult for anyone to advise. When you sit with a client in this kind of scenario you ask to establish the facts, all of them, even those that may not yet be known by anyone else.
My former colleague, Billy Murphy, was always uber intense in these moments; he would listen carefully to the client’s account of events and then, steely-eyed and without a flicker of empathy, ask, “Is that it? Is there anything else, anything at all that you think might be remotely relevant to this, anything else that we should know?”
The supportive attitude would follow but, at the start of any such engagement, the clinician’s tone was used to stress the necessity of full disclosure. There was no escaping the need for it. Without it the correct course of action couldn’t be shaped but, in spite of this necessarily rigorous approach, there were plenty of occasions when days, or even weeks, into long-running sagas, some other ‘gem of omission’ would emerge. Our work with the Blood Transfusion Board at the emergence of the Hep C crisis in 1994, an event of such great hurt to so many, comes to mind.
The ineptitude of Troy’s management of his self-induced saga suggests he was one such customer; someone who, even as his difficulties were apparent, thought somehow the problem would just pass. The term ‘drip-drip’ is commonly used to describe stories of this type, but I suspect the most gifted communications plumber alive would have struggled to cope with the flow of information relating to Robert Troy’s property interests.
The real concern about his fitness for public office is, however, more about how he tried to account for things; the caveated answers, a Trumpesque lack of detail or understanding of basic regulations and, at times, a vagueness where a lack of certainty is barely credible.
Earlier this month, in answer to an Irish Times question about whether he’d insisted on cash payments from one tenant, the Minister’s spokesperson said, ‘Robert believes he never insisted on cash payments but acknowledges that the rent was paid at times in cash.’ It’s less the problem of cash payments but more the first two words that damn him as unfit for ministerial office. ‘Robert believes….! What are we to make of a government minister who cannot, straight out, with, one would hope, no little outrage, dismiss, out of hand, any idea that he would insist on being paid rental income in cash.
Troy would, of course, be more emphatic and detailed as the story advanced, making it clear when he talked to Bryan Dobson that he had never insisted on cash and rejecting the “negative connotations” that came with it, saying he had an affidavit from the tenant involved which would support his position, but the fact that he or his spokesperson hadn’t done so earlier – or felt the need to do so – betrays some failure to appreciate the essentials of holding public office.
This may seem unduly harsh. Why parse one sentence? The sentence was dealing with arguably the most potentially lethal issue of all – a claim that a government minister had insisted on a tenant paying him in cash. Surely the question had to yield a response that, in language, was definitive and in tone, was outraged? It didn’t, instead the newspaper was told that ‘Robert believes he never insisted…’ Well, that’s alright then, and strangely, it certainly appeared to be fine in the view of his political superiors. That was weeks ago but despite the clear evidence of a serious problem, not only did Robert believe but, remarkably, so too did the Taoiseach and the Tanaiste.
Whatever about the incompetence of Troy himself, the judgment of his seniors in government gives reason to wonder about the overall capacity of the current administration to govern. For political leaders as experienced as the Taoiseach and Tanaiste to be so markedly out-of-step on something so straightforward, on a breach of the most basic standards, is astonishing. That Martin chose to back his man and that Varadkar cosied up with Fianna Fáil in protecting him is grist to the Sinn Fein mill, rightly giving weight to the argument that this coalition is a marriage of the entitled. It’s hard to see how the imminent switching of roles at the top of the coalition will have any impact ahead of the next election, especially if either or both men lead their parties into the fray.
*****
While Micheál Martin was mis-managing the Troy controversy, his Finnish counterpart, Prime Minister, Sanna Marin, was personally embroiled in a media storm over partying. Videos appeared of her and friends dancing and drinking into the small hours at her official residence in Helsinki. To some Finns this was unacceptable with questions raised about her fitness to govern which drew a fierce response from the more liberal majority and elicited considerable support, particularly from women, globally.
What Ms. Marin did was address the issue immediately and comprehensively. She’s been in office for three years and has managed complex issues well, including Covid and seeking membership of NATO in light of the continuing aggression of neighbouring Russia. Responding to the criticism, she reflected on her long-stated belief that the Finns should work and play ‘hard’; she, after all, is one of the first leaders in Europe to encourage a move toward a four-day working week. When, 18 months ago, in what was an error of judgement, she was photographed in a nightclub during lockdown, she immediately apologised and said it had been a mistake of her own making. It’s hard to imagine Finland’s Prime Minister dithering as one of her junior ministers juggled a property portfolio away from the political register. That’s in part down to her but in larger measure a reflection of the Finnish political culture.
*****
What are we to make of a bright, talented, hard-working young woman who had mates back to her gaffe for a bit of a blast, being subject to intense scrutiny over her competence and performance at work? Seriously?! Why, other than her gender, has the exploitative world of social media (possibly helped by the Russians) focused relentlessly on how she chooses to party or, more ridiculously, that, on another private occasion some of her friends chose not to wear any top. Women around the world were, rightly, outraged when Marin was criticised for posing for Vogue in a standard dark business suit without a bra. How many images of Boris Johnson in a white shirt unbuttoned to his naval has the poor British public been subjected to over the last decade? Indeed didn’t Leo Varadkar, mid-lockdown, treat the Irish people to a display of his pecks while sunbathing in Dublin’s Phoenix Park. Men only, I guess!
It’s not that many years ago when the President of one of the world’s largest nations posed topless and the only debate was around how fit he appeared for a man of his age. That, of course, was the intent of the megalomaniacal Putin, in releasing the photograph. The macho image, long cultivated by the regular publication of photos of him in the wild, in his battle fatigues, turned out to be more representative of his leadership than we might have feared. Putin is actually the amoral warmonger suggested by his self-styled public image.
How many times did the talented and hard-working German Chancellor, Angela Merkel have friends around for dinner when perhaps they – middle-aged farts as they probably were – drank way too much wine and maybe even traded in inappropriate conversation? Maybe never! We’ve no idea but we should not care; in fact, we should feel no entitlement to know how the men and women who govern us spend their private time, provided it doesn’t impair their capacity to do their job.
*****
There’s little doubt that the focus on Sanna Marin is in part sexist but it may be ageist too; there’s a resentment that someone so young can be in such a powerful and responsible position. This is changing but across too many areas leadership remains vested, not just in men, but also in people of a certain age. There’s a quietly managed narrative that wants to pretend leadership of the largest and most important institutions, public and private, and certainly political leadership, is predicated on having decades of professional experience. People like Ms Marin challenge that view so any opportunity to undermine young leaders will be exploited as has happened this week.
Sanna Marrin’s public image also reflects her approach to politics, one where people are free to live as they choose. It’s long been the Finnish way, a country that borders Russia, but is a member of the EU more than 25 years ago. It’s a large country, one with a population the same as Ireland’s but one where, in common with many Nordic countries, standards in public life are high so political controversies are rare. In fact, the international corruption index has placed it in the top three most ethical countries globally for some years and, in spite of an often tumultuous history, Finland is renowned for the stability and probity of its politics.
What seems certain is that its tolerance of things that should matter – like any failure of a public representative to register accurately their private interests – is nil. It would appear that in Finland, provided it’s not unlawful or immoral, what public figures do in their downtime is, in today’s media world, something that correctly has little or no influence on public judgement of their capacity to govern.
