In this first guest blog Dr. Mary Murphy, Lecturer in Irish Politics and Society, Department of Sociology, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, asks how has the game changed for social justice advocates?
Writing in June 2012, surrounded by football and the London Olympics it is difficult to avoid sport. This short think piece gets into the athletic spirit and explores the challenges facing social justice advocates. Four sporting terms seem useful in thinking about post crisis social justice advocacy: the players; the rules of the game; the pitch on which the game is played; and the game itself. Social justice advocates are proving skilful at tactically adapting to player and rule changes, but they appear less comfortable in responding to the conditions of the pitch, and in defining what game is or can be played. 
The players...
Who is playing the game has changed substantially in recent years. There is a new government comprised of two political parties that were last in power in 1997, this means a sea change of ministers, political advisers and political party staff. There are significant changes in senior civil service personnel due to the early retirement of many familiar faces. There are also significant departmental reconfigurations and public sector reforms. Of course there are also some new international players in town. In the absence of state funding, philanthropic organisations are important players. Civil society organisations, particularly at local level, have been decimated by funding cuts, while emerging social movements may come to challenge existing monopolies in civil society. Keeping up is a challenge in itself. Change presents opportunities and threats for social justice advocacy, well-established and effective relationships are no longer viable but so too old tensions may have been moved aside.
The rules...
New players can sometimes mean a redefinition or at least a reinterpretation of the rules. Regulation of state funding increasingly prohibits or restricts advocacy work. Philanthropic organisations impose their own rules of engagement. Social partnership and formalised rules of consultation are gone and new rules governing social dialogue have been slow to emerge. Different political parties have different cultures of engagement with advocacy groups. Old rules about pre budget processes or policy submissions are less relevant when at the international political economy level there are new rules concerning and constraining government fiscal strategy.
The pitch...
Irish social justice advocacy and civil society is most usefully understood in the historical trajectory of its wider nexus of state/society/market ( Kirby and Murphy, 2009, pp 143-149 ). An active civil society first contributed to the foundation of the Irish state but was later significantly shaped by an Irish postcolonial state. Key markers of this new state were its insular and populist culture, a patriarchal Catholic Church, and continued contestation regarding Northern Ireland. The state's early relationship to the international political economy were marked by periods of isolationism, followed since the late 1940s by an increasingly open and liberal trade policy and a proactive perusal of foreign investment. While membership of the EU exposed the state to social democratic values, anglo-saxon liberal individualism remains the greater influence. The pitch then is a small island with a remarkably open neo-liberal economy, a mixed welfare state and a set of political institutions (PRSTV, centralism, corporatism) that nurture and embed a clientalistic, parochial and populist political culture.
Advocacy work is carried out in the shadow of a populist state and advocates are to some degree prisoners of a populist democracy. We are taught I scath a cheile a mhaireann na daoine that we live in each other's shadows and as citizens are shaped by such rhetoric. The impact of populism manifests itself in an absence of class politics, ideology and ideas, conflict and political dynamics, public discourse and debate. These are replaced by a stress on the national interest - le cheile. The irony is that a perceived homogeneous population coexists with a highly contingent welfare system that differentiates and separates citizens in a very unequal society. Close proximity can mean conflict is personalised and framed as against 'the national interest', and consequently the default position can be to 'keep the head down' and maintain cordial relations. Each of us needs to be critically self aware about how living on a small populist island community frames our lives as citizens in civil society, and our actions as social justice advocates.
This historical and institutional setting and the wider nexus of state/society/market is crucial in understanding the capacity of Irish civil society and social justice advocacy to respond to its contemporary challenge. Recent disabling by the state of civil society, dismantling of its infrastructure and marginalisation of dissent might be seen as a state response to the growing strength of civil society.
How the Irish economy emerges from this crisis is critical for future economic, social and economic sustainability. Different policy responses will benefit or disadvantage different groups. For example, the gendered nature of the economy means that the recession and policy responses to the recession have different consequences for men and women. There is an absence of alternative, social economy or social market approaches to meeting social needs. The right to self determination is consistent with the notion of active society debating viable alternatives for democracy to chose between ( Dorling 2010 ). A counter narrative about alternatives to market led responses is largely absent, political parties are largely failing to supply that narrative. Civil society has a role in creating alternatives and needs to rise to the occasion but is overshadowed by a neo-liberal state and market. It is crucial to know the pitch on which the game is played.
The game...
While the 1980s focused on economic justice and the 1990s focused on building a status based equality infrastructure, the macro focus of the 2000s was increasing public expenditure for all with less focus on redistribution. Absence of class or socio-economic status in the equality framework artificially disconnected justice and recognition agendas and consequently underlying solidarity weakened.
In the Celtic Tiger period it was possible to win the game of social justice advocacy without causing any material loss for others, with growing national wealth win-win outcomes were viable and social justice advocates could afford significant solidarity with each other. Post crisis the nature of social justice advocacy has changed. In a time of fixed resources one group's victory may mean another group's loss. Advocacy is now a zero sum game, and there are two ways to play it. On the one hand social justice advocates can adopt a narrow defensive strategy, cuts may well need to be made but the game becomes each organisation protecting their clearly vulnerable population. It seems likely that the most powerful of the vulnerable will win this game.
On the other hand the objective of the game could be to challenge the notion that there is no alternative and to argue that resources are not fixed but can be grown through increased taxation, investment, job creation, etc. This requires social justice advocates collaborating to move out of traditional comfort zones and taking on the challenge of debating political economy, fiscal policy, taxation and industrial policy. Playing this game implies a realignment of social justice advocacy's relationship with the state.
Recession deepens the likelihood of the splintering of fragile equality alliances. A principle of solidarity offers the opportunity to reconnect and build alternatives that meaningfully engage the interface of redistribution and recognition. This raises the question of how to reconcile principles of justice, recognition and solidarity with meaningful mechanisms of social engagement that enable representation and participation in democracy. Where does social justice advocacy fit into this new game?
Discussion of political reform has mainly centred on the effective functioning of representative institutions. It is vital to widen the discussion to reforms that might enable a more meaningful political democracy and social engagement, political reform of this kind will only come with sufficient demand from below. We need to learn from our own history and from examples of civil societies elsewhere who have successfully impacted on the shaping of macro national development. We need to strive for an 'active society'. This is not limited to a state funded civil society, with high levels of social justice advocacy, volunteering or high volumes of third sector service delivery. It is a highly participative citizenry with high levels of social engagement where citizens articulate how they want their state to shape their economy and national development.
Social justice advocacy has changed, the rules are changing and the players have changed, and social justice advocates have responded with new tactics. However the pitch remains dominated by a populist political culture, a mixed welfare state, and an open neoliberal economy. If our ambition is to shape macro national development, is it time for social justice advocates to play a new game?
Bíonn ciúin ciontach - The quiet are guilty