A conservative revolution electoral

change in twenty first century Ireland

1st Edition Farrell
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/a-conservative-revolution-electoral-change-in-twenty-f
irst-century-ireland-1st-edition-farrell/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Irish Welfare State in the Twenty-First Century:

Challenges and Change 1st Edition Mary P. Murphy

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-irish-welfare-state-in-the-
twenty-first-century-challenges-and-change-1st-edition-mary-p-
murphy/

After critique. Twenty-first-century fiction in a

neoliberal age 1st Edition Mitchum Huehls

https://textbookfull.com/product/after-critique-twenty-first-
century-fiction-in-a-neoliberal-age-1st-edition-mitchum-huehls/

Collaborative Art in the Twenty First Century 1st

Edition Sondra Bacharach

https://textbookfull.com/product/collaborative-art-in-the-twenty-
first-century-1st-edition-sondra-bacharach/

Cosmopolitanism in Twenty-First Century Fiction 1st

Edition Kristian Shaw (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/cosmopolitanism-in-twenty-first-
century-fiction-1st-edition-kristian-shaw-auth/
Commonwealth History in the Twenty-First Century Saul
Dubow

https://textbookfull.com/product/commonwealth-history-in-the-
twenty-first-century-saul-dubow/

Rethinking Security in the Twenty-First Century: A

Reader 1st Edition Edwin Daniel Jacob (Eds.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/rethinking-security-in-the-
twenty-first-century-a-reader-1st-edition-edwin-daniel-jacob-eds/

Twenty First Century Chicago Preliminary Dick Simpson

https://textbookfull.com/product/twenty-first-century-chicago-
preliminary-dick-simpson/

Uproot travels in twenty first century music and

digital culture First Edition Clayton

https://textbookfull.com/product/uproot-travels-in-twenty-first-
century-music-and-digital-culture-first-edition-clayton/

Militant Aesthetics - Art Activism in the Twenty-First

Century First Edition Martin Lang

https://textbookfull.com/product/militant-aesthetics-art-
activism-in-the-twenty-first-century-first-edition-martin-lang/
A Conservative Revolution?
A Conservative Revolution?
Electoral Change in Twenty-First-Century
Ireland

Edited by
Michael Marsh, David M. Farrell,
and Gail McElroy

1
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Oxford University Press 2017
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
First Edition published in 2017
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016951322
ISBN 978–0–19–874403–0
Printed in Great Britain by
Clays Ltd, St Ives plc
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
Foreword
Michael Laver

If we want to understand how and why citizens vote in democratic elections,

and most certainly we do, then the gold standard is a beautifully designed and
well-conducted academic election study. There are, of course, increasingly
many ways to measure ‘public opinion’. These include ‘light-duty’ opinion
surveys conducted for media outlets, putting a few newsworthy questions to a
quota sample of the population, these days typically via telephone or Internet
polling. The dirty secret here is that response rates in such surveys are plum-
meting, meaning that the set of respondents is become increasingly unrepre-
sentative of the electorate as a whole. Available fixes require reweighting survey
responses so that at least the weighted demographics of the survey match those
of the population, but, as response rates sink into the low double-digit figures
(and even lower for some key demographic categories such as young voters),
this reweighting becomes so aggressive that it greatly leverages any potential
errors. This is one possible explanation for why opinion polls these days often
seem to be getting things badly wrong. There are also increasingly sophisticated
methods for analysing the vast volume of text generated every day on social
media. More generally, there is an ever-expanding ‘big data’ environment in
which more and more information is available about how ordinary people
behave. We will hear much more of these new methods in the future, but for
now academic election studies remain the gold standard. These are based on
genuine random samples of voters, which, tiresomely but necessarily, involve
contacting and recontacting sampled respondents until contact is made,
accepting no substitutes. They ask a lot of relevant questions, using a question-
naire that may take up to an hour to get through. Many of those questions have
been tried and tested over many years in many countries, resulting in a wording
that is very precise, and an unparalleled ability to measure changes within
countries over time, as well as to make comparisons between many different
countries. They are for these reasons very expensive, but there is no substitute as
a vital part of the infrastructure of modern social science.
This book is based on the Irish National Election Studies of 2002–11. Ireland
came late to the election study game, as it came late to having a well-developed
Foreword

political science profession. The first Irish National Election Study (INES) was
conducted in 2002 funded by an Irish government grant that was in turn co-
sponsored and triggered by a US-based funding agency, Atlantic Philanthro-
pies. Most developed democracies have deployed state-funded election studies
since the 1950s, but the founding of the INES, of which the 2007 and 2011
election studies are a continuation, was of course better late than never. We
now have a developing time series that systematically measures developments
in Irish politics and a growing body of data that allow Irish voters to be
compared with voters in many other developed democracies.
Substantively this is important, because Ireland is no cookie-cutter democ-
racy. For much of the post-war era, there was a bitter civil war in living
memory and a resulting fractious but intimate relationship with Britain, the
former colonial power. There was an effectively unilateral declaration of
independence resulting in a 1937 republican constitution written in close
consultation with the Catholic hierarchy. The single transferrable vote elect-
oral system, which few political scientists outside Ireland really understand,
incentivizes clientelist and parochial politics, as well as facilitating maverick
local independents who have on occasion held the balance of power in
government formation. There was substantial emigration of many of its
younger and more enterprising citizens. No wonder Irish politics was ‘pecu-
liar’ to Ireland, with vigorous competition, incomprehensible to most foreign-
ers, between two conservative parties with similar-looking economic policies
but deeply differing cultural traditions rooted in the civil war, and a social
democratic party that was tiny in European terms.
Much, however, has changed in recent years, at least arguably making Irish
politics less peculiar. The influence of the Catholic Church declined substan-
tially, not least because of a relentless series of abuse scandals. The birthrate fell
off a cliff, though remains relatively high by European standards, reducing
demographic pressures for emigration. Ireland joined the EU, enjoyed a Celtic
Tiger boom making it briefly one of the richest countries in Europe, and then
a deep bust during the world financial crisis, requiring a bailout and the tem-
porary ceding of substantial financial autonomy to a troika of external powers
(the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission, and the Euro-
pean Central Bank). Fortunately, the political implications of at least some of
these developments were charted by the INES, culminating in the subject of
this book, the post-bust, dramatic, and arguably ‘realigning’ election of 2011.
We should be very thankful we have a ‘proper’ election study, not just a pot-
pourri of opinion polls, to help us navigate this important intellectual territory.
Self-evidently given the date of publication, this is not an ‘instant’ book on
the 2011 election—How Ireland Voted 2011 (Palgrave 2011) has done a very
good job of that already. The book that follows here is the keeper, the main-
stream contribution, by many of the most accomplished and respected

vi
 Foreword

academics working on Irish politics, which deploys the 2002–11 Irish National
Election Studies to provide systemic scientific answers to many of the key
questions about this important election. This takes time, because the need is
not to do it fast but to get it right, and to provide a long-standing contribution
to the professional literature. This is a book that will be read and cited for
decades to come.

vii
Editors’ Preface

The genesis of this project was a concern to provide an authoritative statement

on Irish voting behaviour in the early decades of the twenty-first century. The
three Irish National Elections Studies, covering the 2002, 2007, and 2011
elections, provide the research community with unparalleled access to the
highest quality data on Irish citizens’ preferences and participation in the
democratic process. The data gathered are particularly important in the case
of the 2011 election, which was held in the midst of Ireland’s worst ever
economic crisis, an election that produced dramatic electoral outcomes—a
major focus of attention in this volume.
The ambition to provide an authoritative statement was influential in
determining the mix of authors selected to contribute to this study—a mix
of senior scholars (most of these from overseas) working in conjunction with
Irish-based political scientists. This was a truly collaborative effort. Draft
papers were presented at two of the annual meetings of the Political Studies
Association of Ireland (PSAI)—both occasions providing opportunities for the
authors to meet and confer on draft chapters. We are grateful to the PSAI for
providing additional funding support to fly over some of our international
contributors.
Funding for the three Irish National Election Studies came from a range of
sources. The 2002 INES was funded by a grant to Michael Marsh and Richard
Sinnott under the government’s ‘PRTLI/National Development Plan’. The
2007 INES was supported by an infrastructure programme grant awarded to
Michael Marsh by the Irish Research Council for Humanities and Social
Sciences (IRCHSS, the precursor to today’s Irish Research Council). Unfortu-
nately, we were unable to secure research council funding for the 2011
INES. Instead this was funded from a series of sources: the Political Studies
Association of Ireland (PSAI), Trinity College Dublin, University College
Dublin, Dublin City University, University College Cork, Google, the Oireachtas
[Irish Parliament], and the McDougall Trust in London. Given the difficult
nature of raising funding for the 2011 INES, it was run under the auspices
of the PSAI, with Michael Marsh, David Farrell, and Gail McElroy acting as
co-investigators, working closely with a panel of collaborators representing
most universities in Ireland.
Editors’ Preface

For two of the editors there was a second motivation guiding this project.
Michael Marsh was the main driving force behind the initiative to establish an
Irish National Election Study in the first instance and to ensure the continu-
ation of the series—sometimes, but not always, with the support of the Irish
Research Council (or its predecessor operations). But for Michael Marsh’s
efforts Ireland would not have developed this ‘gold standard’ of election
survey data referred to by Michael Laver in his Foreword to this volume. The
fact that so many academic colleagues—Irish-based and from overseas, senior
and junior, including many of Michael Marsh’s former students—so enthusi-
astically agreed to contribute to this volume is testimony to the high regard
Michael is held in the study of elections. Michael may be the lead editor of this
book—and a very active one at that—but the intention behind its contributors
is also to honour him and to mark his contributions to the discipline.

x
Contents

List of Figures xiii

List of Tables xv
Abbreviations xvii
List of Contributors xix

1. Introduction: The 2011 Election in Context 1

Michael Marsh, David M. Farrell, and Gail McElroy

2. Class Politics in Ireland: How Economic Catastrophe

Realigned Irish Politics 11
James Tilley and John Garry

3. The Economy and the Vote in Irish National Elections 28

Kevin M. Leyden and Michael S. Lewis-Beck

4. Economic Voting through Boom and Bust: Information and

Choice at Irish General Elections, 2002–2011 42
Patrick Bernhagen and Heinz Brandenburg

5. Party Competition in Ireland: The Emergence of a

Left–Right Dimension? 61
Gail McElroy

6. The Lack of Party System Change in Ireland in 2011 83

Shaun Bowler and David M. Farrell

7. How Generational Replacement Undermined the Electoral

Resilience of Fianna Fáil 102
Cees van der Eijk and Johan A. Elkink

8. The Malleable Nature of Party Identification 123

Robert Thomson

9. Pathological Parochialism or a Valuable Service? Attitudes

to the Constituency Role of Irish Parliamentarians 143
Michael Gallagher and Jane Suiter
Contents

10. In the Line of Duty: The Moral Basis of Turnout in the 2011
Irish Election 172
André Blais, Carol Galais, and Theresa Reidy

11. After 2011: Continuing the Revolution 192

Michael Marsh

12. A Conservative Revolution? The Disequilibrium of Irish Politics 208

Eoin O’Malley and R. Kenneth Carty

Appendix: The INES 2011 Questionnaire 223

Index 253

xii
List of Figures

2.1. Differences from the working class in support for the four main
parties in the 2002 and 2007 elections 17
2.2. Differences from the working class in support for the four main
parties in the 2011 election 18
2.3. The perceived responsibility of the Fianna Fáil-led government
for the poor economic conditions of 2009–2011 19
2.4. Perceived party positions on a left–right scale between 2002 and 2011 21
2.5. The destination of Fianna Fáil defectors in the 2011 election 22
2.6. Proportions of people supporting each party by left–right
self-placement 23
5.1. Irish Candidate Surveys, comparison of population and sample
distribution by party and year 65
5.2. Placement of parties on left–right dimension, INES 2011 66
5.3. Placement of parties on left–right dimension, CCS 2011 67
5.4. Candidate placement of political parties, 2007–2014 68
5.5. Party candidates’ and party voters’ placement of their own party 69
5.6. Voter self-placement, left–right and taxes spending 70
5.7. Candidate self-placement, left–right and taxes spending 72
5.8. Marginal effects with 95 per cent confidence intervals, voters 2011 74
5.9. Marginal effects with 95 per cent confidence intervals, candidates 2011 75
5.10. Distributions of candidates and voters, left–right scale, 2011 76
5.11. Distributions of candidates and voters, taxes versus spending, 2011 77
5.12. Distributions of candidates and voters, European integration, 2011 78
5.13. Distributions of candidates and voters, immigration, 2011 78
5.14. Distributions of candidates versus party mean position, taxes versus
spending, 2011 79
6.1. Irish voters’ self-placement 2007–2011: Kernel density plot 89
8.1. Respondents’ 2007 evaluations of the fulfilment of four 2002 pledges 129
List of Figures

8.2a. For respondents who identified with a governing party in 2002,

the effects of their evaluations of pledge fulfilment on their party
identification in 2007 134
8.2b. For respondents who identified with an opposition party in 2002, the
effects of their evaluations of pledge fulfilment on their party
identification in 2007 134
8.3. For respondents who identified with a governing party in 2002, the
effects of their evaluations of economic performance on their party
identification in 2007 136
8.4. For respondents who voted for a governing party in 2007, the effects
of their evaluations of economic performance on their party
identification in 2011 138
10.1. Turnout in Ireland, 1961–2011 174
10.2. Voting gap between younger (16–35) and older (55+) voters in the
2011 election 175
10.3. Percentage who strongly agree that voting is a duty, 2001 178
10.4. Percentage who found it ‘extremely important’ to vote in elections
to be considered a good citizen, 2002 178
10.5. Political interest and turnout in 2011 181
10.6. Interaction effects: duty and interest in politics 183
10.7. Interaction effects: interest in politics and impact of the crisis 184
11.1. The genealogy of independent support, 2014–2015 196
11.2. The genealogy of Sinn Féin support, 2014–2015 197
11.3. Class voting, 1969–2014 197
11.4. Comparative sociotropic and pocketbook evaluations: EU and Ireland 202
11.5. Positive economic evaluation and government support, 2014–2015 204
12.1. Fianna Fáil vote share, 1932–2011 210
12.2. Self-reported identification with Irish parties, 1977–2011 212

xiv
List of Tables

3.1. A parsimonious model of the Fianna Fáil vote, 2011 36

4.1. Coverage of economic affairs in six Irish newspapers, 2002, 2007,
and 2011 50
4.2. Tone of coverage of government handling of the economy in six Irish
newspapers, 2002 and 2007 52
4.3. Logit regression of economic voting and news coverage, 2002, 2007,
and 2011 54
4.4. Logit regression of economic voting and tone of news, 2002, 2007,
and 2011 55
5.1. Overview of Irish candidate studies 65
5.2. Correlation matrix, self-placement on left–right and policy issues, 2011 73
6.1. Numbers of candidates in Irish general elections, 2002, 2007, and 2011 85
6.2. Voting for Independents, 2011 91
6.3. Efficiency of Irish STV candidate votes, 2011 96
6.4. Percentage of voters reporting being contacted by candidates, 2002,
2007, and 2011 96
6.5. Internal solidarity in transfer patterns, 2011 97
7.1. Percentage of Fianna Fáil voters giving Fianna Fáil the maximum
score (10) on PTV scale 110
7.2. Ratio of unique to total potential electorate of Fianna Fáil 114
7.3. Coefficient of dyadic overlap of electoral preferences for Fianna
Fáil and Fine Gael 116
8.1. Party identification, 2002, 2007, and 2011 130
8.2. Changes in respondents’ party identification between 2002 and 2007 131
8.3. Factors affecting respondents’ party identification, 2007 and 2011 132
9.1. Extent of contact between citizens and TDs, by age, 2002, 2006,
and 2011 152
9.2. Contact and political engagement, 2002, 2006, and 2011 154
9.3. Contact with TDs, 2006 155
9.4. How TDs were contacted, 2002 156
List of Tables

9.5. On whose behalf, or on what subject, TDs were contacted, 2002

and 2011 157
9.6. Reason for contacting TDs, 2002 and 2011 158
9.7. Importance of various roles that TDs might perform, 2011 159
9.8. Perceptions as to whether TDs currently allocate their time as they
should, 2011 160
9.9. Percentage of time that TDs do, and should, devote to local
issues, 2011 160
9.10. Relative importance of party and candidate in determining
respondent’s vote, 2002, 2007, and 2011 163
9.11. Party of first candidate contacted, by vote, 2011 164
9.12. Multinomial logistic regression analysis of vote choice, 2011 166
10.1. Propensity to vote by duty, 2011 180
10.2. Logit estimations of turnout in Ireland, 2011 182
10.3. Duty to vote and most important issue in the 2011 election 185
10.4. Estimation models for the duty to vote: logistic regression 186
11.1. Results of European Parliament and local elections, 2009–2011 194
11.2. Party support in the polls, by year, 2011–2015 195
11.3. Distribution of party attachment, 2002–2014 199
11.4. Sociotropic and pocketbook evaluations, 2014 202

xvi
Abbreviations

ASES Asia Europe Survey

B&A Behaviour & Attitudes
CCS Comparative Candidates Study
CSES Comparative Study of Electoral Systems
EES European Election Study
ESS European Social Survey
FF Fianna Fáil
FG Fine Gael
GAA Gaelic Athletic Association
GP Green Party
IDEA Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
INES Irish National Election Study
IPP Irish Parliamentary Party
IRC Irish Research Council
IRCHSS Irish Research Council for Humanities and Social Sciences
Lab. Labour Party
NTPF National Treatment Purchase Fund
PCO percentage change in the odds
PDs Progressive Democrats
PR proportional representation
PSAI Political Studies Association of Ireland
PTV propensity to vote
RTÉ Raidió Teilifís Éireann
SES socioeconomic status
SF Sinn Féin
STV single transferable vote
TD Teachta Dála
UKIP UK Independence Party
ULA United Left Alliance
List of Contributors

Professor Patrick Bernhagen, Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Universität Stuttgart

Professor André Blais, Canada Research Chair in Electoral Studies, Department of
Political Science, University of Montreal
Professor Shaun Bowler, Department of Political Science, University of California,
Riverside
Dr Heinz Brandenburg, School of Government and Public Policy, University of
Strathclyde
Professor R. Kenneth Carty, Department of Political Science, University of British
Columbia
Professor Cees van der Eijk, Methods and Data Institute, University of Nottingham
Dr Johan A. Elkink, School of Politics and International Relations, University College
Dublin
Professor David M. Farrell, MRIA, School of Politics and International Relations,
University College Dublin
Dr Carol Galais, postdoctoral research fellow, Research Group on Electronic Govern-
ment and Democracy, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
Professor Michael Gallagher, MRIA, Department of Political Science, Trinity College
Dublin
Professor John Garry, School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy,
Queen’s University Belfast
Professor Michael Laver, The Wilf Family Department of Politics, New York University
Professor Emeritus Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Department of Political Science,
University of Iowa
Professor Kevin M. Leyden, School of Political Science and Sociology, NUI Galway
Professor Gail McElroy, Department of Political Science, Trinity College Dublin
Professor Emeritus Michael Marsh, MRIA, Department of Political Science, Trinity
College Dublin
Dr Eoin O’Malley, School of Law and Government, Dublin City University
Dr Theresa Reidy, Department of Government, University College Cork
Dr Jane Suiter, School of Communications, Dublin City University
List of Contributors

Professor Robert Thomson, School of Government and Public Policy, University of

Strathclyde
Professor James Tilley, Department of Politics and International Relations, University
of Oxford

xx
1

Introduction

The 2011 Election in Context

Michael Marsh, David M. Farrell, and Gail McElroy

Introduction

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the state of electoral behav-

iour research in the Republic of Ireland, locating the Irish National Election
Study (INES) and Irish elections in comparative context. This chapter is in three
sections. We start by setting the scene in terms of the 2011 election, an election
that was seen by many at the time as an electoral earthquake. Was this election
as radical as it appeared at first or did we see a culmination of longer-term trends
as evidenced in the previous two general elections of 2002 and 2007? In the
subsequent section we introduce the INES, a study that has tracked Irish voter
trends across the three elections from 2002 to 2011 and that forms the basis for
the chapters that follow. In the third section of the chapter we set out the main
themes that are developed in the remaining chapters in this volume.

An ‘Electoral Earthquake’?

In comparative terms, the 2011 general election in the Republic of Ireland was
one of the most dramatic ever witnessed in Europe’s established democracies:
only two other elections (the Italian election of 1994 and the Dutch election
of 2002) have surpassed it in terms of inter-party volatility in established
democracies (Mair 2011).
Whatever way one looks at it, the Irish general election of 2011 appeared
exceptional. The various accounts of it competed to find the most appropriate
metaphor: ‘watershed moment’, ‘perfect storm’, ‘electoral earthquake’ (as an
Michael Marsh, David M. Farrell, and Gail McElroy

example, see Gallagher and Marsh 2011). The most notable outcome of the
election was the collapse of Fianna Fáil, one of the world’s most enduring and
successful parties. In comparative terms, Fianna Fáil’s defeat was among the
largest experienced by a major party in the history of parliamentary democracy.
It went from being the largest party in the state (a position it had held since
1932) to being a bit player in Irish political life; it had never received so few seats
(12 per cent in the lower house) or such a small vote share (17.4 per cent).
The election’s significance was of more than academic interest. The
extremely precarious state of the Irish economy and the real danger of con-
tamination that it presented to the wider Eurozone meant that all eyes were
trained on this election like none before it.
And yet, for all this talk of change, ultimately there was much that remained
the same, perhaps most distinctly of all the fact that no new parties emerged.
It was, if anything, a ‘conservative revolution’. In 2011 Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael,
and Labour—the three parties that have defined Ireland’s ‘two-and-a-half ’
party system—won 133 of the Dáil’s 166 seats, the same total they had jointly
won in 2002 (albeit with very differing individual fortunes).
In order to arrive at a proper sense of the impact of the economic collapse on
the party system and political life in a ‘bailout country’, this study examines,
in depth, underlying voter attitudes in the period 2002–11. Drawing on a rich
dataset of three national election studies, this book follows party system
evolution and voter behaviour from boom to bust. These data permit an
unprecedented insight into a party system and its voters at a time of great
change, as the country went through a period of rapid growth to become one
of Europe’s wealthiest states in the early twenty-first century to economic
meltdown in the midst of the international Great Recession, all of this in
the space of a single decade.
In the process, this study additionally explores many of the well-established
norms and conventional wisdoms of Irish electoral behaviour that make
it such an interesting case study for comparison with other industrialized
democracies. It is these features that have been seen historically to mark out
Irish electoral politics as sui generis (Whyte 1974; Carty 1983). Do any of these
distinctive features still apply? Questions that will be addressed include the
following: Is Irish voting behaviour still a ‘politics without social basis’ (a
position that for so long set Ireland apart from its European counterparts, at
least until electoral dealignment set in more widely) or has a social class
dimension finally emerged? Do political parties still lack programmatic
distinguishability combined with a weak policy focus and does this account
for the relative unimportance of class in voting behaviour? Is the inherent
weakness of the left still reflected in party competition and perceptions of the
policy space? Does the strong candidate-centred emphasis in Irish voting
behaviour still prevail, even in times of crisis?

2
 Introduction

Research on Irish Election Results

In the twentieth century research on Irish elections was based either on the
evidence provided by the election results themselves, including the pattern of
vote transfers available under the single transferable vote (STV) system, or on
commercial opinion polls, supplemented by work using the Irish elements
in broader international studies, most notably the Eurobarometer series.
While some useful work was done using these data, commercial polls were
motivated by a very different set of objectives than is an election study, and
international survey programmes rarely polled at a time close to a general
election. A significant increase in the funding available for university research
at the start of the twenty-first century at least provided an opportunity to seek
money for an election study, and a successful application under the Programme
for Research in Third Level Institutions made possible a post-election survey of
the 2002 general election. The study followed the standard pattern established
elsewhere of a face-to-face probability survey with a sample size of 2,663, fielded
immediately after the election. The response rate for the main questionnaire
was 60 per cent, with over 85 per cent of those completing the supplementary
drop-off questionnaire containing, among other things, a module of questions
from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems project (CSES).1
Following the 2002 study, respondents were sent mail questionnaires on
several more occasions: in November–December 2003, in the summer of 2004
after the June 2004 local and European Parliament elections, and in the first
months of 2006. Response rates—measured against the 2002 baseline—were
45 per cent, 41 per cent, and 40 per cent respectively.2
In 2007, after the general election, a final wave of the study was carried out
face to face as in 2002. This was made possible by a research grant from the
Irish Research Council for the Social Sciences and Humanities. This last wave
was topped up by a short mail questionnaire sent out late in 2007 to panel
respondents who had not been interviewed successfully in 2007, and
there were also interviews with a further 220 respondents to provide a more
representative sample for 2007. The response rate for the panel element was
38 per cent against a 2002 baseline, with a further 4 per cent via the mail
questionnaire. However, this was actually 54 per cent of sought interviews
completed, once deaths and changes of address without notification are taken
into account. In all, 518 respondents completed all five waves of the survey.
No central funding was available for 2011. A more limited budget raised
from a variety of sources, including Trinity College Dublin, University College
Dublin, and a number of the other Irish universities, the Political Studies

1
<http://cses.org> (accessed 20 September 2016).
2
For early analysis using the 2002 INES, see Marsh et al. (2008).

3
Michael Marsh, David M. Farrell, and Gail McElroy

Association of Ireland, Google, the Oireachtas (Irish parliament), and the

London-based McDougall Trust, was sufficient to mount a face-to-face survey
with 1,800 respondents in the weeks after that election. While there were
changes in the survey items, there was a large core of questions asked in all
three studies, and a much smaller set in the inter-election surveys as well. The
questionnaires were substantial, and interviews typically lasted an hour. There
was also a drop-off questionnaire, amounting to a further fifteen minutes that
was completed by about 90 per cent of respondents in all three studies.
The major innovation provided by these studies was the fact that there had
been no election studies previously. However, there were some other elements
that were unusual at the time of the 2002 study. Most notably, these studies
have given considerable attention to the ‘dependent variable’—electoral
choice. All employed a mock-ballot, a crucial element in a study of voting
behaviour in this most ‘candidate-centred’ of electoral systems: STV (Farrell
and McAllister 2006). Respondents were provided with a facsimile of the
ballot they would have received at the recent election and asked to mark it,
either as they had done, or as they would have done had they voted. This
provides us with information of the voter’s ranking of both candidates and
parties. It was supplemented by questions asking voters to rate the parties,
such as the standard items tapping affective orientations to parties, and
questions asking respondents to rate the candidates. This provides a dataset
that is unusually (perhaps uniquely so) rich in terms of tapping respondents’
rating and ranking of the elements of electoral choice.

The Structure of this Volume

This volume brings together many of the world’s leading scholars in electoral
behaviour and comparative politics to explore the changing landscape of Irish
politics. Drawing on original data from the INES surveys of 2002, 2007, and
2011, the book addresses the themes of change and continuity in a decade
in which the Republic of Ireland went from economic boom to bust. The
chapters that follow examine what has happened to the old shibboleths that
were seen to mark out Irish politics as unique. How permanent a shift have we
seen of electoral alignments? To what extent is this a phenomenon of the
supposed 2011 electoral earthquake, or have the trends being occurring over a
longer period?
Ireland has traditionally been portrayed as a political system in which social
cleavages, and especially the class cleavage based on economic divisions, have
played little role in driving vote choices. Parties have been seen as non-
ideological and not rooted in social groups. In 2011, the implosion of Fianna
Fáil, which up to that point had been not only the dominant political party,

4
 Introduction

but also the party that most clearly exemplified the catch-all nature of Irish
parties, changed this picture. In Chapter 2 Tilley and Garry show that not only
were economic divisions based on occupation and income increasingly
important in deciding vote choices at the 2011 election, but that this change
was largely due to the differential defection of previous Fianna Fáil voters to
the other parties. Put simply, voters defected from Fianna Fáil because of
(negative) economic changes, but the party they defected to was predicated
on their place in the economic structure. This realignment of the party struc-
ture was confirmed by the ideological views of people who defected—
defectors to Labour and Sinn Féin were considerably more left wing than
defectors to Fine Gael.
Building on this, in Chapter 3 Leyden and Lewis-Beck examine whether
there is an Irish economic voter, directly comparable with his or her counter-
parts in other Western democracies. In 2011, in the most turbulent of elec-
tions in the midst of the most turbulent of economic times, there never was a
more appropriate time to look at the issue of economic voting in an Irish
election. Starting with a review of the evidence of economic voting in previous
Irish elections (referencing in particular the 2002 and 2007 INES data), this
chapter assesses the strength of the economic vote in 2011 when the country
was in the depths of economic crisis, thus making this a difficult test using
cross-sectional survey data in a context in which everyone perceives a bad
economy. Despite this, Leyden and Lewis-Beck’s analysis reveals that the
impact of economic voting was at its greatest in 2011, adding further evidence
to recent comparative findings that in hard times democratic governments
are punished harder than in normal times for bad economic performance.
The principal finding overall is that the Irish economic voter does exist and
that this can be understood pretty much as economic voters can be under-
stood in other Western democracies.
The Bernhagen and Brandenburg analysis in Chapter 4 further explores this
question of economic voting through a linkage of media coverage of the
economy and voter choice. A considerable body of research exists on the
economic and informational determinants of voting behaviour. However,
unresolved questions remain about the relationship between these two
factors. While economic voting is generally understood as a matter of pro-
spective evaluation carried out on the basis of retrospective cues available to
voters, the extent to which prospective information matters for vote choice
remains unclear, in particular if it conflicts with retrospective experience.
Bernhagen and Brandenburg address this by analysing the two general elec-
tions of 2002 and 2007 before the fiscal and economic collapse and the 2011
election that directly followed the meltdown. These elections provide case
studies of economic voting that enable an investigation of whether during
good times voters reward the government for facilitating the economic boom

5
Michael Marsh, David M. Farrell, and Gail McElroy

irrespective of the extent to which they are exposed to warnings about poten-
tially weak foundations and predictions of economic decline. They link media
content data in the context of the elections with survey data from the
INES. Across the elections they find significant variation in the amount (and
tone) of economic coverage across the media. The chapter also compares
the relative impact of prospective economic information with other valence
cues, such as evaluations of party leaders and non-economic policies and
performance.
Following from this examination of economic voting and class voting, in
Chapter 5 McElroy explores the nature and dimensionality of policy space,
asking whether Irish party competition has changed over the period 2002–11
and what left and right mean in the Irish context. What does the left–right
dimension of political competition mean in Ireland, and how does it affect
political outcomes? Traditionally, the association between political left–right
and voter choice has been weaker in Ireland than in other European societies.
This chapter explores the nature and dimensionality of policy space in Ireland
from the perspective of voters and politicians. What are the principal axes of
competition and is there an identifiable left–right ‘super’ dimension? And, if
so, what issues are bundled under this umbrella? Drawing on original and
directly comparable data from the Irish National Election Study and the Irish
Candidate Survey, the chapter explores the nature of party competition in the
Republic of Ireland from the perspective of voters and election candidates.
Questions that are addressed include whether or not the policy space is viewed
differently by masses and elites, whether or not Irish voters organize their
attitudes to party competition in systematic and meaningful ways, and
whether or not there have been changes in the meaning and consequences
of policy dimensions over time.
In Chapter 6 Bowler and Farrell further investigate this theme of party
system change with a focus on the institutional and behavioural barriers
that prevent radical realignments and dealignments of the Irish electorate.
Despite its proportional representation (PR) electoral system, Ireland has not
seen the multiplication of political parties common to other PR systems.
While some new parties have emerged, they have not been long lasting. The
other feature peculiar to Irish politics has been the large number of independ-
ents elected to parliament—more than in all the other parliaments of Europe
combined. Given the scale of electoral change in 2011, there was reason to
expect that, on this occasion, we might see something different. It is hard to
think of an election more suited to the rise of a new political party in Ireland,
and yet none emerged. Irish voters, angered by the depth of the economic
crisis, were certainly ‘available’ for change, but with nowhere else to go many
appear to have simply given their vote to independents, resulting in their
number rising to one of its highest ever. To some extent the explanation for

6
 Introduction

the lack of party change is a range of election-related institutional features

that operate as barriers to entry for aspirant parties, less so for independent
candidates. But the deeper reason—as revealed by the chapter’s analysis of
INES data—is behavioural.
Van der Eijk and Elkink’s focus in Chapter 7 is on party switching, building
on the behavioural aspect highlighted in the previous chapter to suggest that a
dealigned electorate is emerging. The civil-war cleavage that differentiated the
two main Irish parties, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, has been gradually dimin-
ishing in importance since the 1980s. This trend reached a crescendo in 2011,
when the incumbent Fianna Fáil party saw a dramatic decline in voter sup-
port, with swathes of its core voters switching to the main opposition party,
Fine Gael. This volatility must be seen from the perspective of a generational
replacement. To understand the potential for electoral switching, as opposed
to change after the fact, the authors investigate the configuration of voters’
preferences expressed through propensity-to-vote questions in the INES data.
Propensity-to-vote questions allow for the assessment of the level of incom-
patibility between the two largest parties over time, disentangling cohort,
period, and age effects between different generations. The general framework
provides theoretical tools better to understand the scale of Fianna Fáil’s defeat,
as unique commitment to that party had declined markedly from the position
a generation previously, and it was thus more vulnerable to punishment
following the crisis.
In Chapter 8 Thomson builds on this theme of party commitment by
testing classical theories of party identification in the Irish context and finds
that party identification is very much affected by citizens’ evaluation of
government performance. Party identification is one of the central concepts
in the study of electoral behaviour, but scholars still disagree on what exactly
it is. The classical view of party identification is that it is a perceptual screen
through which citizens interpret political phenomena. The revisionist view
contends that party identification is a running tally of citizens’ evaluations of
performance. These competing conceptions have obvious, profound, and
testable implications for the effects of citizens’ evaluations of policy perform-
ance on their party identification. This chapter tests some of these implica-
tions in the Irish context: first with panel data from 2002–7 that contain a
unique set of questions on citizens’ evaluations of policy performance;
and, second, with data from 2011 following the dramatic deterioration in
economic conditions during the financial crisis. This evidence shows that
party identification is more malleable than the classical view suggests, and
that changes in party identification are affected by citizens’ evaluations of
governments’ policy performance.
Gallagher and Suiter further explore this role of government performance
in Chapter 9 and how it impacts on the personal vote in their study on

7
Michael Marsh, David M. Farrell, and Gail McElroy

constituency service. One of the most frequently noted features of the Irish
political system is the strong constituency role of local Teachtaí Dála (TDs—
members of parliament). Normatively, this constituency focus is criticized by
some for leading to parliament paying inadequate attention to national pol-
itical issues, but defended by others for the role it plays in linking citizens to
the political system. Public attitudes attach great importance to candidates’
ability to perform this role. Yet, at the 2011 election voters ejected many long-
serving TDs from office. INES data enable us to explore the question of
whether this reflected simple punishment of an unpopular government or
whether there was a change of priorities relating to the importance attached to
constituency service in contrast with the evidence from the previous
two elections. The chapter examines in addition whether attitudes towards
constituency service by TDs was affected by socio-demographic or partisan
factors.
In Chapter 10 Blais, Galais, and Reidy explore what motivates Irish people
to vote, exploring, for the first time at least in an Irish context, the moral
dimension of turnout. Among all the explanations offered for the act of
voting, an attitude stands out for its predictive power on turnout: the belief
that voting is a moral obligation or a civic duty (e.g. Campbell et al. 1960; Blais
and Achen 2010). How strong or weak is this sense of duty in Ireland? How is it
related to the decision to vote or not to vote? And where does duty come from?
This chapter ascertains how many Irish citizens feel that they have a moral
duty to vote, particularly in a time of national crises, as compared with
elections in more prosperous times. It examines in particular whether sense
of duty matters more for those less interested in politics. Finally, the chapter
explores the socio-demographic correlates of duty to vote, with a special
emphasis on age, gender, education, and religion, paying attention to how
they interact with each other.
In Chapter 11 Marsh makes use of more recent opinion poll data to assess
what has happened in the period since the 2011 election. The local and
European Parliament elections that took place in 2014 provided the first real
test of post-2011 electoral alignments. The government parties lost heavily,
but most change was not to the benefit of a somewhat revived Fianna Fáil, as
the three old parties this time mustered only one of every two votes cast.
Extensive polling data from the campaign and polls leading up to late 2015
all enable him to draw comparisons with 2011, asking how far behaviour in
these elections underlines or contrasts with the developments uncovered in
previous chapters. In addition, the chapter seeks to answer the puzzle of how
the gradual economic upturn in the final years of the Fine Gael–Labour
coalition was not matched by an uptake in voter support for either party:
ultimately it was this absence of a ‘feel-good factor’ that was to cost both
parties heavily in 2016.

8
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Götrik Fincke nousi ylös lähteäksensä Filippuksen puheille.

— Ennen mentyänne, herra Götrik, tyhjentäkäämme ensimäinen

maljamme, sanoi Olavi, viitaten Gretchenille, joka heti toi esille
hopeatarjottimen, johon ennakolta oli ladottu kalliita, viinillä täytettyjä
maljoja.

Gretchen asetti tarjottimen pöydälle, pani toisen suuremmista

maljoista
Fincken, toisen Olavin eteen ja tarjosi kolmannen, pienimmän pikarin
Ebballe, peräytyen sitten kunnioittaen taemmaksi.

He joivat kaikki pohjaan, ja Fincke poistui, luvaten pian palata.

Olavi käski Gretchenin ja palvelijain odottaa kyökissä ruokineen,
kunnes hän toisin määräisi.

Tuskin olivat Olavi ja Ebba jääneet kahden kesken, kun Ebba

yht'äkkiä huutaa parkaisi. Olavi oli käynyt kuoleman kalpeaksi, silmät
oli tunkea kuopistaan ja kasvot vääristyivät kivusta. Ebban
huutaessa tuli Gretchen sisään.

— Hän kuolee! huusi Ebba, kauhistuneena rientäen huoneesta

ulos.

— Auttakaa! Minä palan! ähkyi Olavi. Ken on tehnyt mulle tämän?

Gretchen astui lähemmälle.

— Sen olen minä tehnyt, sanoi hän pannen kätensä ristiin

rinnoille.

— Olavi katsoi häneen terävästi, läpi-lävistävin silmin.

 — Sinä? suhisi hän.

— Niin, vastasi Gretchen, minä juuri. Näin sinun kaatavan jotakin

mustaa nestettä Ebba neitsyen maljaan. Tiesin kyllä ett’et sitä tehnyt
mitään hyvää tarkoittaen, ja niinpä vaihdoin viinin.

— Miksikä, miksikä teit tämän? kuiskasi Olavi, väännellessään

sinne tänne ja kylmän hien pihkuessa hänen otsastaan.

— Miksikö? Siksi että olen nähnyt, miten sinä olet ollut täynnäsi
pahuutta kuin myrkyllinen, käärme. Sinä et edes voinut pitää kavalia
hankkeitasi salassa; sinulla piti oleman joku, jolle aiheesi ilmoittaisit,
voidaksesi jo edeltäkäsin riemuita pahuuttasi. Arvaappas mitä minä
tunsin puhuessasi, miten etsit sopivaa tilaisuutta saattaaksesi Niilo
Iivarinpoikaa hengiltä. Hän, jota minä rakastin ja jonka puolesta
mielelläni olisin mennyt kuolemaan. Minä varoitin häntä, mutta hän ei
ymmärtänyt varoitustani, vaan on nyt kuolleena.

Hän kallisti alakuloisesti päätänsä, mutta nosti sen heti jälleen

pystyyn.

— Ja mitä annoitkaan kerran minulle juoda? Minua hirvittää vielä

sitä ajatellessani. Ooh, tunnen sen asian varsin hyvin. Olen
Saksassa monta kertaa kuullut, miten velhot moisella juomalla
kulkevat Kyöpelin-vuorelle. Minkä tähden teit minulle sen? Tahdoitko
myydä minut saatanalle ja, varastaa minulta ijankaikkista autuuttani?
Mutta minä olen itkenyt ja rukoillut, ja perkele on minusta jälleen
lähtenyt, vaikka jo olin hänen kourissansa ja kauvan kannoin hänen
merkkiänsä punaisena pilkkuna olkapäällään Ja mitä ai'oit tehdä
nyt? Niilo Iivarinpojan morsiamen, jalon Fincke herran kauniin
tyttären tahdoit minun sijastani myydä paholaiselle, ostaaksesi
tämän tytön viattomalla sielulla hänen apunsa. Ja tämänkö sallisin
tapahtua? Hänetkö antaisin sinun, ilkeiden tarkoitustesi
täyttämiseksi, uhrata ikuisen kadotuksen tuskille, niinkuin minutkin
tahdoit uhrata? Minä vaihdoin viinin, itse olet juonut suuhusi noita-
juoman.

Tyttösen näin puhuessa kiivaalla ja suuttuneella äänellä, oli Olavi

vain tuijottanut häneen, ja vaahtoa kokoutui hänen huulilleen.
Horkansetki sai hänestä kiinni, jalat vääntyivät väärään, sormet
tarttuivat jäykkinä pöytäliinankulmaan. Mies vaivainen putosi kovan
suonenvedon vallassa lattiaan, vetäen perästänsä pöytäliinat, astiat
ja viinimaljat.

Nyt törmäsivät, melusta peljästyneinä, palvelijat sisään. He kokivat

nostaa Olavia pystyyn. Hän avasi silmänsä ja tuijotti tylsästi
ympärilleen, kunnes hänen katseensa kohtasi Gretchenin, joka
kalpeana ja peloissaan nojausi viereisen tuolin selkälautaa vasten.

— Sinä — sinä — olet minut murhannut, huusi hän, törmäsi ylös ja

tarttui häntä rintaan.

Röijyn sametti halkesi, ja hämmästyen näkivät palvelijat että

Olavin kamaripoika oli nainen.

— Noita-akka — — juotti — mulle — myrkkyä! äkkäsi Olavi.

Hän vaipui lattialle, taasen kovan suonenvedon väristyksissä.

Filippus Kern, jota oli lähetetty noutamaan ja joka oli rientänyt

paikalle ynnä Fincken kanssa, otti pienestä vaskirasiasta, jota hän
aina kantoi taskussaan, kolme rippileipää, joissa oli kolme ristin
muotoista merkkiä kussakin, vasta-syntyneiden karitsain verellä
siihen piirrettyjä.
 Hän koki saada ne sisään Olavin kovasti yhteen-purtujen
hampaiden välistä.

— Jos hän nielaisee ne, on hän pelastettu! mumisi Filippus.

— Sitokaa tuo tuossa! huusi hän sitten, osoittaen Gretcheniä. Hän

on myrkyttänyt hänet. Hän on velho!

Palvelijat ymmärsivät yhdestä sanasta. Gretchenin peljästys asian

äkkinäisestä lopusta, kuolevan sanat ja etupäässä se seikka, että
hän oli nainen, todistivat häntä vastaan. Gretchen pantiin kiinni.
Seuraavana päivänä oli hän vietävä kaupungin vankilaan.

Samassa astui Niilo sisään, juuri kun Olavi taasen aukasi silmänsä
ja puoleksi kohosi jaloilleen.

— Kavaltaja, huusi hänelle Niilo. Niin, tuijota minuun, sinä

kelvoton.
Ilkeät vehkeesi eivät onnistuneet. Tunnen kaikki kemialliset
hankkeesi.
Kauvan olet välttänyt rangaistusta, mutta nyt saat, kun saatkin,
tekojesi palkan.

Ebba oli viereisestä huoneesta kuullut Niilon äänen ja riensi nyt

riemuiten hänen syliinsä. Liikutuksen vallassa painoi hänet Niilo
rinnalleen, hellästi suudellen noita onnesta loistavia kasvoja.

Olavi Sverkerinpoika koki vielä nousta. Hänen silmänsä kiiluivat

vihaa, ja hän nosteli nyrkkiänsä. Mutta väristen vaipui hän jälleen
maahan.

— Kirje… korisi hän, ja kasvoille lensi kuolemantuska.

 Taasen tuli hänelle kova suonenveto. Tämän tauottua kävivät
hänen kasvonsa hetkeksi levollisemmaksi. Hänen silmistään lensi
himmeä, rukoileva katse läsnä-olijoihin, hänen huulensa liikkuivat,
ikäänkuin olisi hän tahtonut jotakin sanoa, hänen rintansa aaltoili
raskaasti, mutta samassa hetkessä tuli häneen suonenveto
uudestaan, ja tuskissa väännellen heitti hän henkensä.

Peljästyneenä nojasi Ebba päätänsä Niilon hartiaa vasten,

ikääskuin olisi hän tahtonut karttaa tuota kauheaa näkyä.

Älä välitä kavaltavan konnan kuolemasta, sanoi Niilo. Petturi,

vakoja, joka kavalasti imarrellen luikertaa kansalaistensa
luottamukseen varastaaksensa heidän kunniansa — ehkäpä
pannaksensa isänmaan onnen kaupoille, hän ei ansaitse sääliä,
vaan halveksimista vain. Tule, mennään pois!

Myöhempään illalla oli Pekka Niilon ja oman hevosensa kanssa

linnakentällä, odottaen pimeässä jotakuta tulevaa. Eikä hänen
tarvinnut kauvan odottaa, ennenkun ihmishaamu näkyi tulevan,
juosten linnasta päin kentän poikki. Se oli Gretchen hovipoika-
vaatteissaan. Hetken päästä kuului kahden laukkaavan hevosen
kavioin kopse tömisevän pitkin kaupungin ahtaita katuja, mutta se ei
häirinnyt moiseen meluun tottuneita, kiinniruuvattujen
ikkunaluukkujensa takana nukkuvia kaupunkilaisia. Ratsastajat,
ajoivat ulos tulliportista, ja toinen heistä, tuttavamme Pekka, lausui
leikillisesti:

— Kun nyt tulen mustalaisten luo, niin annanpa akkojen povata

itselleni, pitääkö minun tänä vuonna mennä naimisiin vai olla
menemättä.
 Kun oikeuden-palvelijat seuraavana päivänä tulivat noutamaan
tuota velhoomisesta ja noituudesta syytettyä tyttöä, oli hän, kun
olikin, tipo tiessään. Sen huoneen ikkuna, jossa häntä oli pidetty
suljettuna ja jossa Niilo vielä edellisenä iltana oli käynyt häntä
puhuttelemassa, oli auki — ja tämä seikka oli ainoana, jälkenä
hänen perästänsä, Oli huimaavan syvä sieltä ylhäältä maahan, ja
mahdotonta oli että mikään ihmis-olento olisi tuosta uskaltanut
hypätä alas. Kun räystäsränni, joka kävi ihan ikkunanpieltä myöten,
pari vuotta sitä ennen pystytettiin, oli muuan työmies luiskahtanut
keskikorkealta irti ja pudonnut kuoliaana maahan..

Gretchen oli ja pysyi poissa. Luultavasti oli hän — niin arveltiin —

lentänyt tiehensä Pelsepupin avulla. Eräs vahtimies väitti nähneensä
mustan jättiläislinnun kaltaisen haahmon yösydännä häilyvän seinää
vasten räystäsrännin kohdalla hänen ikkunansa alla. Mies oli niin
peljästynyt, ett'ei uskaltanut sille puolen linnaa ennen päivän tultua,
mutta silloin ei haahmoa enää näkynyt.
LOPPU.

Oli päästy elokuun loppupuoleen. Porkkolan kartano oli uudestaan

rakennettu ja välkkyi vastaveistettynä, komeana koivujen
vihannoivain välistä.

Lukuisa joukko ritareita ja ylhäisiä naisia loistavissa puvuissa oli

kokoontunut tuohon suureen, koristettuun saliin — Ebba Fincken ja
Niilo Iivarinpojan häitä viettämään.

Vihkimyksen toimitti kirkkoherra vanhus. Hän oli Ebballe antanut

kirkon kasteen, hän oli kasteen-liiton hänelle vahvistanut, ja kun hän
nyt näki neidon — sitten kun Herra oli kovilla kärsimyksillä koettanut
— onnellisena morsiamena posket punassa seisovan tuon hohtavan
silkkiteltan alla, jota kauniit kaasot ja uljaat ohjemiehet pitivät, silloin
vapisi hänen äänensä liikutuksesta, hänen alkaessaan:

— Ei yhdellekään ihmiselle ole suotu että läpikatsoa Herran,

kaikkivaltiaan sallimusta. Mutta niinkuin Daavid virrentekijä lausuu:
ahdistuksesta minut päästänyt olet, niin tulee meidän aina luottaa
Herran päälle, joka ei omaisiansa hylkää. Katsokaa kuinka kauniina
kesä nyt seisoo kukoistuksessansa ja tähkäpäät pellolla turpoovat.
Runsaalla kädellä suopi nyt kaikkein hyvien lahjojen antaja viljaa,
sitten kun hän vanhurskaudessansa kovasti ja kauvan on koetellut
meitä näljällä ja kalliilla ajalla. Kansa, joka oli miekkaan tarttunut, on
nyt palannut takaisin sirppiensä ja autojensa tykö. Rauha vallitsee
maassa, ja mitä viha on kaatanut, sen ahkeruus uudestaan
ylösrakentaman pitää, niinkuin tämä talo, jossa nyt olemme
kokoontulleet, jälleen on ylöskohonnut tuhkasta, suurempana ja
kauniimpana kuin entinen. Täällä tulee nyt uljas, jalo ja ylhäinen
vänrikki Niilo Iivarinpoika emäntänsä, siveän, jalon ja ylhäisen
neitsyen Ebba Fincken kanssa Herran pelvossa ja hänen
siunauksessansa viettämään elämänsä suven ja vanhuutensa
syksyn onnellisella kukoistuksella ja ihanalla hedelmällä, johon
alaskutsumme sen kaikkein korkeimman armon. Rukoilkaamme!

Kun vihkimys oli toimitettu messuineen ja virrenlauluineen, istuttiin

hää-aterialle, joka nautittiin ilon ja riemun vallitessa.

— Se oli ikävää, lausui Niilo, — kun palvelija oli tarttua häätorttu-

vatiin, tarjotakseen Ebballe — että reipas Pekkani, joka aina on
tehnyt tehtävänsä sodan ja vainon vallitessa, nyt ei ole saapuvilla
palvellakseen minua. Siitä kun hän Turussa sai joksikin aikaa loman,
ei häntä enää ole näkynyt. Mutta hänet oikealta kannalta
tunteakseni, ei hän ole hukkaan joutunut.

Samassa kuului rämisevän kärryt; -jotka seisahtivat portaiden

eteen, ja sisään hääsalihin astui Pekka tyytyväisyys naamassaan ja
puoleksi laahaten muassaan talonpojan-tyttöä, jonka vereksille
punaposkille hämi ja ujous ajoi lisää purppuraa.

— Pekka! huudahti Niilo.

— Niin, nuori herra, vastasi Pekka, pyyhkien pellavatukan

silmiltään.
Hän itse ja Kreeta, torpparin-ämmä myös, laillisesti vihityt
Pohjanmaalla kristilliseen avioliittoon. Sanottuhan on, ett'ei miehen
pidä yksinänsä oleman.

— Ai, ai, sanoi nauraen Niilo. Jos minun täytyy jättää Ebba rouva
ja lähteä sotaan, niin tulet sinä siivosti mukaan, ja miten käy silloin
torpan, kun Kreeta yksinään saa sitä hoitaa.

— Sen hän osaa oivallisesti, kehui ylpeänä Pekka. Hän pystyy itse
kyntämään, jos niin tarvitaan, sillä siihen ovat Pohjanmaan reippaat
tyttösiipat nyt saanet oppia, kun niin monta miestä on hukkunut
tuohon tyhmään sotaan. Mutta sotapa ei sentään ollutkaan niin
tyhmä. Tällä haavaa on Pohjanmaalla miesväen puute, enkä muuten
kai olisi saanutkaan Kreetaa muassani tänne.

Hän heitti tirkistävän, itserakkaan ja ihastuneen silmäyksen

Kreetaansa ja lisäsi sitten:

— Teitä en koskaan jätä, Niilo herra, en kotona enkä muualla. —

Annappa tänne, sanoi hän sitten palvelijalle, jonka tuli kantaa
häätorttua. Etkö näe että minä olen täällä! Anna mun kantaa.

Aterian loputtua tarttui Götrik Fincke suureen hopeamaljaan, pyysi

äänettömyyttä ja lausui:

— Vihollinen vei voimani päivinä käsivarteni, mutta hän ei voinut

viedä ruotsalaista sydäntäni. Ja tämä sydän sykkii vieläkin ylpeyttä,
ajatellessani niitä voittoja, joihin niin usein olen vienyt Suomen
poikiani. Se pahoitti minua kovasti, kun kansa äsken näkyi menneen
hajallensa ja käänsi aseensa omaa rintaa vastaan. Ja vieläkin minua
pahoittaa se eripuraisuus, joka vallitsee valtakunnassa. Se päivä on
tuleva, jolloin voimiamme tarvitaan valtakunnan vanhaa vihollista
vastaan. Vielä ei kukaan tunne hänen voimaansa, mutta tulkaan hän
vain! Vaikkapa hän hakkaisikin poikki kansan käden, niinkuin hän on
minun käteni katkaissut; — niin kauvan kuin meillä on toinen käsi ja
rehellinen, isänmaallinen sydämemme tallella, olemme, kun
olemmekin, vahvat. Tämä on minun sanani teille, te nuoret, nyt
juodessani teidän onneksenne tästä vanhasta maljasta, jonka kerran
itse otin pajarin teltasta.

Götrik Fincke tyhjensi rakkaan maljansa, jonka jälleen

passaripoika täytti reunoihin asti. Niilo Iivarinpoika tarttui siihen nyt.

— Teidän sananne on pysyvä meille kalliina, kunnioitettuna

muistona, isä, sanoi hän vakavasti. Lapsemme ja lapsenlapsemme
ovat ne painavat sydämiinsä. Niinkuin itse olen kasvanut isoksi ja
vahvaksi, vaikka olen maannut vihollisen miekan lyömänä kalman
omana melkein, niin kasvakoot hekin voimassa ja olkoot aina valmiit
asettamaan rintansa maan ja valtakunnan suojaksi. Sotilaana kyllä
tiedän että onni voi vaihtua. Mutta minä olen kokenut vanhan,
arvoisan kirkkoherramme sanojen totuuden ja huomannut että,
vaikka viimeinenkin toivo näkyy rauenneen, voi Jumala armossansa
kääntää kaikki paruiksemme. Tulkoon, jos niin on taivaan tahto,
vihollinen kymmenkertaisella voimalla. Me ja meidän jälkeisemme
emme pelkää, sillä Herra on auttava meitä, niinkuin tähän saakka,
hyvässä taistelussamme.

Hän tyhjensi vuorostaan maljan. Vakava mieli-ala vallitsi nyt

hetken aikaa seurassa. Jokaisella oli kansan taistelujen ja
kärsimysten muisto vireänä mielessä; he eivät unohtaneet tuota
kamppausta, joka vuosi satojen vierressä on ikääskuin pyhäksi
käynyt ja jossa tiedettiin kansan elämän taikka kuoleman kaupoilla
olleen.
 Hääjuhlaa jatkettiin sitten ilon ja riemun vallitessa, ja
morsiustanssin huvi elähytti nuoret ja vanhat. Ylpeä oli ylkä ja
miellyttävä morsian. Mutta kauniinta oli nähdä, kun illan hämärä tuli,
soitsutanssi tanssittiin morsiusparin kunniaksi ja soitsujen valo heitti
haaveellisen kohteensa nuoren pariskunnan onneen ja iloiseen,
hälisevään hääjoukkoon.
 *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SOTAMIEHET
JA TALONPOJAT ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
 This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
 License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.