'Hero or villain' - Recap of turbulent presidential races
Reports range from potentially strong runners to complete speculation and celebrity candidates, yet the race is still waiting on its first candidate to officially declare that they will be running.
However, campaigns are likely to start gathering momentum ahead of the Irish public hitting the poles in November.
RTÉ reporter Edel McAllister spoke to a previous candidate on the turbulence of the campaign trail and the public and media's role in challenging those that put their names forward.
"While it was a heart-thumping, totally terrorising, and awful experience on one level, it was also the best thing I ever did," said former Senator Joan Freeman of her 2018 presidency campaign run.
The former CEO of Pieta House ran on a mental health platform as an independent candidate.
"I thought that by running it would allow me and the people of Ireland to look at mental health with compassion...a gateway for everyone to open up and speak about it," Ms Freeman said.
She said she knew the campaign would be tough after the 2011 race. "Everybody that goes into it knows that they are up against it," she added.
In that turbulent 2011 campaign, a false tweet broadcast on a TV debate derailed the campaign of Sean Gallagher, resulting in an apology and damages being paid by RTÉ to the businessman.
Another early front runner, former Senator David Norris blamed elements of the media for sabotaging his campaign and spoke of the detrimental effect it had on his health.
Other independent candidates such as Dana, Chernobyl campaigner Adi Roche and Special Olympics organiser Mary Davis also faced bruising campaigns.
Speaking on the News at One, Joan Freeman said while it is "absolutely correct that the media should challenge candidates and make them accountable".
She said they should also "hear their story...and not slash their character".
There's a lot of names in the current mix to succeed Michael D Higgins as president.
Political parties are beginning their selection process but so far no candidates have formally declared.
The 1997 presidency was the first time independents used four local authorities to nominate them.
Although some parties selected candidates outside the party, such as Mary McAleese who went on to win the 1997 race and serve two terms.
Ms Freeman says she understands why some candidates are maybe waiting to see who else will run.
"I declared fairly early on because I thought Michael D Higgins wasn't going to run for the presidency again.
"If I had known he was going...that sounds as if I am a little bit bitter but I am not one bit. I absolutely get why candidates don't put their names forward because they are exposing themselves to be bruised and brutalised," she said.
She added at the time that she wanted the chance to travel the length and breadth of the country to talk about mental health.
She said while she would not be running again, she would advise anyone thinking of running "not to be afraid" but to "stay away from social media."
"Online you are either a hero or a villain, there is no allowance for nuance," Ms Freeman said.
But even long before the days of social media, the race was a tough one.
"Presidential campaigns have always been intensely personal. If we look back to the early ones, these were often replays of the Civil War and you had very divisive campaigning and personalised attacks on candidates," said Professor of Politics at University College Cork Theresa Reidy.
"One of the reasons why presidential elections are so personalised is because this is a position where powers are restricted....In many cases the president is selling a narrative about who they are and how they can represent Ireland so it's very much about their personal story and as a consequence the focus comes in quite intensely on who the candidates are," Prof Reidy said.
Those used to the rough and tumble of party politics might be slightly better prepared for the nature of the campaign, but even seasoned independents appear to be thinking twice before putting their heads above the parapet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Journal
6 hours ago
- The Journal
Here's where Ireland is opening five new embassies and consulates around the world
THE DEPARTMENT OF Foreign Affairs is opening five new embassies and consulates across the world as part of diplomatic missions seeking to expand Ireland's footprint. Embassies will be opening in Belgrade, Serbia as well as Chisinau in Moldova and Sarajevo in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In a statement, Tánaiste Simon Harris said the new embassies show Ireland's 'commitment to EU enlargement', as it takes up the presidency of the European Union in the second half of 2026. 'Our expanded presence in the Western Balkans and Eastern Neighbourhood will reinforce links with countries who look to Ireland as an example of how a country can benefit from, and contribute to, the European Union' The missions will begin operations in the autumn. In addition to the embassies, two new consulates will open – one in Málaga, Spain and one in Melbourne, Australia. Advertisement Consulates are offices that support the embassy in that country. The Tánaiste said these will deliver services to the growing Irish diaspora and holiday makers in both regions. Both are due to become operational in 2026. 'Taken together, and with the mission already opened as part of the Global Ireland strategy, these five new missions will further strengthen Ireland's global presence and influence,' Harris said. Under Global Ireland 2025 – a whole government strategy with the aim of doubling Ireland's influence and footprint – there have been 22 missions opened to date. These include embassies in Kyiv, Rabat, Wellington, Bogotá, Amman, Monrovia, Santiago de Chile, Tehran, Manila, Dakar, and Islamabad. Consulates general have been opened in Vancouver, Mumbai, Frankfurt, Los Angeles, Cardiff, Manchester, Lyon, Miami, Toronto, Milan, and Munich. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
RTÉ News
9 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Trump claims victory on trade - but EU had little choice
In many respects US President Donald Trump achieved his aims by introducing a swath of tariffs with America's main trading partners around the world. The European Union has a population of 448 million compared to the US which has 340 million. However, the US economy is larger. Many have been surprised at the way Donald Trump has appeared to be able to dictate terms to Europe. His announcement yesterday that he would commence the new tariff arrangements from 7 August appeared to be his decision with little input from the EU. President of the European Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen has defended the deal, which will see tariffs of 15% imposed on EU goods. There are two reasons why the EU did not want a full blown trade war with Mr Trump. Firstly, European businesses were opposed to a prolonged period of tit-for-tat tariffs with enormously damaging consequences. Secondly, if relations with Mr Trump soured, he could threaten to row back on defence commitments. The EU is highly reliant on the US for arm supplies, funding for NATO and military support for Ukraine. But looking at scale of tariffs imposed on other countries the EU's 15% does not seem too damaging compared to India's 25%, Canada's 35% and Switzerland's 39%. Most of the US' main trading partners have rates of 15% or 20%. The exception is the UK's 10% tariff. However, this is not an all-inclusive rate. In other words, other rates can be added to it. Nor does Britain have a written agreement capping pharmaceutical tariffs unlike the EU. It is worth bearing in mind that while tariffs on European goods go up, Mr Trump stated the EU would be "opening up their countries at zero tariffs" for US exports. Unanswered questions From the Irish point of view there are still many unanswered questions. There is no agreement on alcohol exports to the US. That sector was expected to be covered by a zero-for-zero tariff arrangement but that has not yet been confirmed. This is critical for Ireland's whiskey industry and the EU's wine exports. It seems clear that pharmaceuticals and computer chips will face tariffs of up to 15%, but the timing is still uncertain. Both are subject of so-called Section 232 investigations because Mr Trump believes the US' use of imports is a national security issue. Tánaiste Simon Harris said the tariffs for sectors under investigation will not become clear until those processes are concluded. For pharmaceuticals that is expected to happen in two weeks. But the fact that the EU-US agreement won't exceed 15% does provide some clarity for the industry. Bank of Ireland pointed out that drugs are relatively inelastic, which means if prices go up people still buy them because they are prescribed by doctors. The new swath of tariffs come at a time when the dollar has been weakening and making EU exports to the US more expensive at the worst possible time. Then there is the question of what this all means for the Irish economy. In March, the Department of Finance and the Economic Social Research Institute published research on the impact of tariffs on the Irish economy. It looks at a range of scenarios from tariffs of 10% to 25%. Based on that analysis, officials at the Department of Finance told business leaders yesterday that the economy would continue to expand, but at a slower pace than previously expected. Employment will grow but at a slower rate. The Government will now have to decide how all this will impact the Budget in October. But while Mr Trump may believe he has achieved his aims on tariffs, in the long run his actions carry the risk of higher inflation in the US and undermining the American economy.
Sunday World
10 hours ago
- Sunday World
Ex-Provo says he's proud IRA chiefs asked him to tell world their war was over
Séanna Walsh became the first IRA man for decades to stand in front of a camera and talk on behalf of the organisation without a mask Seanna Walsh, announces that IRA leadership has formally ordered an end to its armed campaign in 2005. The former Provo who told the world the IRA's war was over has revealed it remains one of the proudest moments of his life – but he had to get his daughters' approval first. Séanna Walsh spoke to the Sunday World on the week of the 20th anniversary of the jaw-dropping statement that declared an end to the IRA's violent campaign which saw them murder more than 1,700 people. On July 28, 2005, Séanna became the first IRA man for decades to stand in front of a camera and talk on behalf of the organisation without a mask. In a DVD that was distributed all over the world, he said the terrorist group was laying down its arms and was committing to a new peaceful strategy of achieving its goal of a united Ireland. Not everyone believed them but 20 years on only the most diehard unionist would argue that the IRA still exists as a violent force. Seanna Walsh, announces that IRA leadership has formally ordered an end to its armed campaign in 2005. Séanna (68) reveals this week why he thinks he was chosen to deliver that message, how he had check it was okay with his family first and how he feels about it 20 years later. While a number of ceasefires had been announced and collapsed since 1994, the 2005 statement saw the start of the decommissioning of weapons. The IRA statement delivered by Séanna said that members had been instructed to use exclusively peaceful means and not to engage in any other activities whatsoever. 'I had to be unmasked,' says Séanna – now a Sinn Féin Belfast city councillor – told the Sunday World. 'It had to be that way because we were doing something different. 'It was the defining moment of my life as a republican and I'm very proud of the fact the IRA leadership asked me to be the person to read the statement. 'I wasn't wearing a mask because we had to move away from that but I wasn't worried because I was quite convinced the days of the armed conflict were over. Séanna Walsh reflects on delivering historic IRA statement 20 years on News in 90 Seconds, Friday August 1 'It was made in the grounds of the Roddy's (Roddy McCorley's Club) and there's a museum there today and you can push the button and play the video and actually there's a recording of me reading the statement in English but also in Irish.' Walsh was a 48-year-old father-of-three when he made the statement which lasted just over four minutes and was filmed in the grounds of the west Belfast club. By then he'd already been in jail three times for his role in violent republicanism – in fact by the time he was released in 1998 he'd spent more time behind bars than out – and his track record was one of the reasons he believes he was chosen to read out the statement. 'I didn't ask them why I was chosen,' says Walsh. 'I was approached by an IRA comrade and that's as much as I can say. I suppose it's because I was confident enough to do it. 'I think they asked me because of the fact I'd served time in the Cages (Long Kesh), where I first met Bobby Sands, and where I shared a cell with him and we became very close friends. 'Then during the hunger strike period I was back in the H-Blocks and suffered the abuse of the blanket protest and was then in charge of the H-Blocks after Bik McFarlane stood down. 'On being released I went back to the struggle and was recaptured a third time and sentenced to 22 years the third time and was finally released in 1998. 'When I was asked would I be prepared to be the one to read the statement to camera and this would go out globally, I had to take a step back and I told them I'll have to think about this because I have three daughters, two of which were teens and the other was only a child. 'I needed to sit down and go through it all with my family – my wife is a long-standing republican in her own right and shared a cell in jail in Armagh with Mairéad Farrell for a number of years. 'So my wife was okay with it and the girls were absolutely supportive – the one thing I was most concerned about was the way that stuff like this can impact on their opportunities to travel and them being at that age. 'So I sat down with them and talked it over with them and I came back and said 'yes I'll do it'. I was a bit concerned about putting myself above the parapet and making myself a target of abuse because we were putting it up to the establishment in a way we hadn't really done before.' For the record, Walsh was jailed for terrorist offences including robbing banks, having a rifle and being caught with explosives but he sticks by the controversial claim that there was 'no alternative'. But he says the growth of Sinn Féin in the Republic actually pushed the IRA closer to a ceasefire as they found Dublin a colder house than before. 'Nationalists and certainly republicans felt there was no alternative to armed struggle but when republicans were convinced that there was a viable alternative to ending British government interference in this part of Ireland without recourse to armed struggle, they jumped at it with both hands and grasped it,' he says. 'To talk about 2005 you really have to talk about the statement Gerry Adams made in April where he talks about the time is now right for the IRA to leave the stage. 'That triggered a whole period of consultation across the republican family... it was time for the IRA to leave the stage because it was leading to excuses on the part of other people, the people in opposition to ourselves. 'When you look back in the years when Sinn Féin was a political party and their strength lay in the North, the Dublin government were a lot less hostile after the IRA ceasefire but Sinn Féin's strength was growing in the south and they were becoming, as far as they were concerned, a threat politically to the southern establishment and that's when things started becoming problematic with the Dublin government.' He says the archives will show that neither unionism nor the British government believed his statement was completely genuine. 'If you look back at the archives the British downplayed it, the unionists totally poo-pooed it and even then later in the year when you had the statement from De Chastelain (chairman of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning), that he was satisfied guns had been put beyond use you still had this scepticism in unionism that didn't believe it.' Last weekend, Séanna took part in a discussion about his historic statement along with Gerry Adams, chaired by Mairéad Farrell TD – niece of IRA member Mairéad who was shot dead in Gibraltar – in Belfast's Balmoral Hotel. Speaking before the event, Gerry Adams voiced regret that the statement of 2005 took so long to come, suggesting the UK government was focused on 'defeating republicanism'. He said: 'It took decades and one of my regrets is that it took so long. In my humble opinion it took so long because the two governments, particularly the British government, only sought peace on its terms, which meant defeat the IRA, it meant defeat republicanism and that doesn't work, our people are resolute.' He added: 'The proof of it is that 20 years later the IRA isn't a feature.'
