“AS president, and working together, we can shape a new, united republic, where everyone is valued, where diversity is cherished, where sustainable solutions are urgently implemented, where a home is regarded as a fundamental human necessity,” says Catherine Connolly

Connolly has brought together the largest grouping of left-wing political parties, trade unionists, cultural and community organisations, anti-war and solidarity groups-in a presidential election since the foundation of the Irish state. 

But her election is not a forgone conclusion in spite of her polls being high. The October 17 edition of the Irish Times carried a headline in reference to the forthcoming Irish presidential election which read: “Connolly holds commanding 18-point lead entering the final week.” 

She was on 38 per cent to Heather Humphrey’s 12 per cent. However, while such a headline might be of comfort to Connolly’s supporters some of the more cynical among us would think there could have been an ulterior motive in writing such a headline.

Could it have been a sort of clarion call to those who do not desire a left-wing candidate as president to come out and vote for her opponent? We all know of the story of the Trojan Horse and the old saying “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” (No offence to Greeks.) So was there an ulterior motive?

There is an issue that is making the election farcical, that is one candidate, Jim Gavin, has withdrawn from the election, but his name will still appear on the ballot paper. Historian Diamaid Ferriter is quite clear that Gavin’s name should not be on the ballot paper. 

He adds to this that we are not used to a non-candidate candidate in the ballot box; a non-candidate candidate whose votes will still be counted and distributed according to the PR system and could be decisive.

He writes that not to remove his name is defensible from a logistical and administrative point of view, given the processing and printing of ballot papers after the close of nominations and the issuing of postal ballots. The decision raises troubling questions about the election count, which Ferriter thinks should have been addressed given Gavin’s early withdrawal.

Ferriter refers to the Electoral Act of 1992 which includes a provision for the relevant minister to issue an order of notification for the conduct of an election in cases of “emergency or special difficulty.” As he writes, this case clearly represents a “special difficulty.” 

However, the minister responsible, James Browne, has given no clear explanation as to why he avoided making use of such an order. In fact, Browne was “crystal clear” in his endorsement of Gavin, writing that he would “be an outstanding President of Ireland.”

Polls put him on just 5 per cent of the vote but as Ferriter writes his transfers could decide the outcome of the elections. Farcical or what?