1

Are Political Leaders more important now than ever before and if so,

under what conditions can they impact in elections? The Leadership

of Enda Kenny in the 2007 and 2011 General Election

Study submitted in part fulfilment of the requirement for the award of BA in

Economics, Politics and Law.

Name: Keith Hoare

Date: 05/04/2012

2

Declaration

I hereby certify that this material, which I now submit for assessment

for the programme of study leading to the award of

Bachelor of Arts in Economics, Politics and Law is entirely my own

work and has not been taken from the work of others save and to the

extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged within the

text of my work.

Signed: _____________________

Student ID Number: 59565531

Date: 05/04/2012

3

Table of Contents

Introduction Page 6

Methodology Page 8

Literature Review Page 11

The Campaigns Page 21

Conclusion Page 29

Appendix Page 31

Bibliography Page 32

4

Acknowledgments

The completion of this project would not have been possible were it not for the

assistance of my thesis supervisor Dr. Eoin O’Malley who was always available

for advice and direction to which I am extremely grateful.

I would also like to thank Sarah O’Connor, National Youth Officer for Fine

Gael for her help with this thesis.

Finally, I wish to extend a special word of thanks to Mark Kennelly, Brian

Murphy, Frank Flannery, Professor Robert Elgie and Mark Mortell for their

invaluable contributions towards this paper and whose expertise is greatly

appreciated.

5

“Over the years, Enda rebuilt and re-energised Fine Gael, yet

questions remained about his leadership abilities and popularity with

the public. As the possibility of a return to power became more and

more likely, elements within the party worried that Kenny would drag

them down

With Fine Gael riding high in the opinion polls, the majority of voters

still couldn’t envisage Kenny as their leader, dismissing him as a nice

man, but lightweight. ‘I’d vote for Fine Gael but not with that Enda

Kenny in charge’ became a familiar refrain

Enda the Underestimated waited a long time to become Taoiseach;

clocking up the mileage, working hard and fighting his corner. He

finally got his wish. And on 17 March, hardly a week in the job, it

was Taoiseach Enda Kenny who travelled to the White House to

present the traditional bowl of shamrock to Barack Obama. Who’d

have thought it? Enda always did”

Miriam Lord 2011:11

6

CHAPTER ONE- Introduction

The nature of election campaigns in Ireland have changed in tandem with the huge

growth in the media and a shift in voting behaviour. The importance of political parties has

declined as more and more voters are becoming less partisan (see Marsh 2006). A surge in

new media with the growth of 24/7 news outlets and the battle for ratings has seen politics

compete against soap dramas and entertainment programmes. Political parties have had no

choice but to respond to the growing demands of television where image, personality and

emotion is of crucial importance in building support. As a result, political communication has

been transformed to respond to a more floating voter and a more leader-focused media. Here,

is where the importance and increased focus on political leaders has emerged. Election

campaigns in modern times have become more personalised and political leaders arguably

have a greater role to play than ever before. Political parties continue to direct more

resources and opportunities during elections to the leader. Modern media has reacted to this

development by continually demanding more of the leader during elections and as a result,

leader’s nationwide tours have become even more prominent. Perhaps the greatest sign of a

shift in politics towards a more leader-orientated democracy can be shown by the televised

leader’s debates which have become a central feature of modern elections. Political parties

are responding to a media which is hungry for more presidential type contests. This

development has led to some political scientists going as far to suggest that parliamentary

democracies are experiencing a presidentialisation of political leadership (see Poguntke &

Webb 2005 for the Presidentialization thesis). Political leaders have become the image of

their party and remain the driving force for policy within parties but they have also a more

challenging role in winning support from a more de-aligned voter and a more leader-focused

media willing to scrutinise at every opportunity. Leaders are therefore seen by the median

voter as the central actor for their party’s message.

From what seems to be more leader-orientated elections, we would expect leaders to

make an impact in elections too. However, if leaders matter now more so than ever before,

then how we can explain for unpopular leaders being elected? Do leaders’ personalities and

characteristics make a difference in elections given the growth in television and TV debates?

Is there a connection between voting choice and leaders? If leaders matter in some elections

more so than others, then does the impact of leaders vary according to the circumstances in

7

which they operate in? The nature of political leadership brings about such questions and

complexities.

Enda Kenny’s leadership during the 2007 and 2011 general election campaigns will

provide a most interesting pair of case studies to test such theories and assertions. Kenny

entered his second general election as leader of Fine Gael in February 2011 as the third most

preferred choice of Taoiseach (Sunday Business Post/Red C Poll January 2011). This was at

a time when his party was the clear front runner for public office. Enda Kenny’s legacy as

opposition leader has left an intriguing puzzle; despite his ferocious work in rebuilding a

party that was near extinction to a position where it has become the largest at local, national

and European level, Kenny was still perceived as a liability to his party by many in the media,

in the public and even among some of his own colleagues. This was despite his successful

elections in 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2009. In his nine years as leader of the opposition,

Kenny’s personal satisfaction ratings failed to ever exceed 50 per cent for any one poll. Both

Pat Rabbitte and subsequent leader of the Labour Party Éamon Gilmore had seen personal

satisfaction ratings greater than 50 per cent as did Bertie Ahern, Brian Cowen, Mary Harney

and Gerry Adams who all served as party leaders alongside Kenny. These opinion polls

heavily influenced the decision by Kenny’s then Deputy Leader and Finance Spokesman

Richard Bruton to mount an unsuccessful but divisive leadership challenge in June 2010.

Eight months later, Enda Kenny was elected as Taoiseach: leading Fine Gael to its greatest

electoral win and achieving the largest ever majority in the state’s history.

This thesis will test the theory that leaders matter now more so than ever before and

will establish the conditions under which their impact varies. I will set out the literature on

political leadership which argues that there now exists a greater prominence for political

leaders. I will also provide the main variables which can constrain and enhance a leader’s

impact. The case studies for this thesis will consist of the general election campaigns of 2007

and 2011. These elections couldn’t differ more in the context of the economic and political

state the country found itself in. I will evaluate Enda Kenny’s leadership within this period to

discover as to how, did Enda Kenny, being perceived as weak among the public and the

media, manage to lead his party to such a historical victory. I will compare and contrast the

election strategies deployed by Fine Gael to assess whether their leader’s role changed and if

so, if this made a difference to the election outcome. I will conclude by answering the two

central theories before us and seek to provide some scope to future research on the study of

political leadership.

8

CHAPTER TWO- Methodology

A Difficult Case

Enda Kenny’s leadership in the 2007 and 2011 general election is a challenging case

because almost everything else changed in the space of those four years other than the leader

himself. The use of such an intriguing and difficult case has its merit in refuting or

confirming the two theories that will be tested. This thesis is concerned with two cases; Fine

Gael’s performance in the 2007 and 2011 general election to examine the role and impact of

its leader. These case studies will show the success story of a leader who was perceived as

weak in terms of media performances, on the economy and in being unable to win over a

majority of satisfied voters outside and within election campaigns.

The 2007 election campaign was dominated by issues surrounding the need to sustain

the Celtic tiger economy rather than curtail it with political parties predicting growth rates of

over 3 per cent (O’Rourke 2011: 8-9). The move to the right by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and

Labour too was down to the perceived healthy economic conditions as well as the mood of

the electorate at the time. Fine Gael entered the campaign with a pact with the Labour Party

in an unsuccessful bid to oust the Fianna Fáil led government from power. Four years later

and the 2011 election campaign was again dominated by the economy but this time on issues

of a far different scale such as re-negotiating EU/IMF bailout programme, the banking crisis;

emigration and on job creation with unemployment having tripled since the 2007 election

(Taylor 2011: 54-59). Political parties changed their faces too. Éamon Gilmore was elected

leader of the Labour Party in September 2007 while Brian Cowen replaced Bertie Ahern as

Taoiseach and leader of Fianna Fáil in May 2008. Public anger and distrust in the political

system was now, arguably, never greater. Despite the completely different context in which

the country and the political system found itself in within the space of two years, Enda Kenny

was the only political leader to remain unchanged. The general election just gone witnessed

Enda Kenny leading Fine Gael to its greatest electoral result in the party’s history.

This is therefore quite a difficult and complex pair of cases. How did Enda Kenny

manage to lead Fine Gael to such a resounding victory in 2011 or was he left in the

background during that particular election campaign? Did the media rightfully perceive

Kenny as weak or was Kenny a leader underestimated in opposition who needed power to

defy his critics? Had Richard Bruton been leader of Fine Gael, would the party have won an

9

overall majority? Without the use of a relevant case study, there would be no practical

situations such as election campaigns where one could test such assertions. As George and

Bennett note (2005: X), it is with the adoption of a case study that one can gather a greater

insight into the failure or success of political science theories and this thesis will provide such

an approach.

Case Studies

General Election 2007

The general election campaign in late May of 2007 was dominated by policies of

maintaining relatively strong economic growth rates and on a fiscal policy combining low

taxes with increased expenditure. This was a common platform put forward by the three

main parties. Fianna Fáil emerged as the largest party in the state for the third consecutive

time leading a government with the Progressive Democrats and a handful of Independent

TDs. Fine Gael, led by Enda Kenny, was destined to the opposition benches once more. But

the party had established itself as a serious voice in opposition. A key cornerstone of

Kenny’s strategy was the idea of ‘a contract for a better Ireland’ between Kenny and the

people; an election tool which paid dividend for the republicans in 1994 in the US (Rafter

2011: 219). In the televised leader’s debate between Enda Kenny and then Taoiseach Bertie

Ahern which took place a week before polling day, many commentators believed Ahern had

edged victory (Bowcott, Guardian News 2007). Fine Gael’s campaign in 2007 as will be

shown in much more detail, focused much more on Kenny as opposed to 2011 where his

most senior spokespeople played a much greater role. By comparing these different case

studies, we can test the theory as to whether leaders matter more so given differing

circumstances. This thesis will compare the campaigns of 2007 and 2011 which will measure

Kenny’s influence and impact in both. Perhaps the ‘anyone but Fianna Fáil’ attitude of the

electorate resulted in Fine Gael’s momentous victory but Fine Gael very much shaped the

direction of the 2011 campaign with what seemed an endless supply of policies which had

been prepared well in advance of the general election under Kenny’s direction. The

completely different context in which both elections operated under provide for a strong pair

of case studies to test whether Kenny’s leadership effect differed between both elections.

10

General Election 2011

In February 2011, the Irish people changed not just its government but the very

political landscape which had remained reasonably static since the foundation of the state.

With Fianna Fáil firmly removed from its dominant role at the fore of Irish politics, the

opportunity arose for a new government comprised of Fine Gael and the Labour party. For

Labour, it was its best ever electoral result winning 37 seats. For Fine Gael, it too was a

momentous occasion with the party attracting 36.1 per cent of the vote and securing a 46 per

cent share of seats in Dáil Eireann. That election marked the end of one of the most historic

political terms ever seen in this country. The Fianna Fáil-Green party coalition with the

support of independents was a government on its last legs for some time; ending with a

disastrous last minute re-shuffle attempt of the cabinet by then Taoiseach Brian Cowen

(Rafter 2011a:2). That particular day will go down in history as one of the more bizarre days

in Irish politics. The resignation of Brian Cowen as leader of Fianna Fáil proved little

comfort for the party. The loss of sovereignty to the IMF along with severe austerity budgets

never seen in this state before; fuelled public anger and a complete loss in faith for the

political system. The success of Fine Gael was thus little surprise to many given the turmoil

which its age old enemy found itself in. Yet, Fine Gael entered the four week general

election with a leader who was perceived by a significant proportion of the electorate and by

a vast majority of the commentariat as inept. A Red C poll published just over three weeks

before polling day summed up Fine Gael’s dilemma; ‘Enda Kenny remains a “turn off” for

some voters…As he gets increased exposure during the campaign, this may depress support

for the party’ (Sunday Business Post/Red C January 2011). Yet, Kenny’s popularity rose

within two weeks of polling day to become the most preferred choice of Taoiseach among

voters (Sunday Business Post, Red C/February 2011). With the ballot boxes opened on

February 26th

, the Irish political system witnessed it’s most fundamental change since the

beginning of the state; the much wrote off and underestimated leader of Fine Gael just four

years after his defeat in 2007 and after a divisive challenge to his leadership, was to become

An Taoiseach. Everything had changed.

11

CHAPTER THREE- Literature Review

In this section, I will discuss whether and under what circumstances political leaders

matter. I will begin by briefly addressing the academic studies on political leadership.

Following this, I will put forward the associating evidence form the literature that with the

growing personalisation of politics arising out of the demands of modern political

communication and with a change in voter attitudes, leaders matter more so now than ever

before. From the literature review, I will outline the different circumstances in which leaders

can best operate in and apply those to test the role and impact of Enda Kenny’s leadership in

the 2007 and 2011 general election campaigns.

Studies on Political Leadership

The study of political leadership has come to the fore of political science during the

mid-20th

century. Since then, the concept itself has been examined from a behavioural

approach which has been largely descriptive; as opposed to scientific. Evidently, a sub-field

of political leadership studies has failed to emerge (interview with Professor Elgie 2012).

Empirical evidence undertaken by scholars has shown that it is difficult to gauge the casual

effect of a specific leader from that of the office which he/she occupies (Ahlquist & Levi

2011:19). The limited use of scientific evidence to measure political leadership has its

constraints on the concept being developed. Therefore, much of the literature to be reviewed

in the following two sub sections is predominantly case study specific as opposed to scientific.

However, some authors have used cross-national data of various countries and their leaders to

give a greater and more generic understanding of political leadership (most notably Aarts,

Blais & Schmitt 2011; Poguntke and Webb 2005). This methodological approach gives a

greater scope for future studies to begin eroding the current complexities of political

leadership. I will now review the literature and test whether leaders are more important now

than ever before and if so, examine the conditions under which leader evaluations can be

maximised or constrained.

Are leaders more important now than before?

Many scholars argue that parliamentary democracies have become more

presidentialised in recent decades (See Curtice & Sarinder 2006; Aarts et al. 2011; Mughan &

Bean 1989, Poguntke & Webb 2005 and Barisione 2009). The presidentialisation of electoral

processes involves a shift from a party focus to one where individual leaders matter more.

12

However, other scholars disagree with the labelling of parliamentary democracies as

becoming ‘presidentialised’ (Heffernan 2005 & 2005a, Karvonen 2010, Mancini 2011). I

agree with the latter because unless there are institutional changes to support the

presidentialisation attribute, a parliamentary democracy by virtue of its formal rules and

structure, remains nothing other than a parliamentary democracy. Therefore, I take favour

with scholars such as Karvonen who put the forward the personalisation thesis i.e. rather than

a presidentialisation of electoral processes, there has been a personalisation where there has

been a greater focus on political leaders as the expense of political parties in the absence of

any formal institutional changes (Karvonen 2010). The personalisation of politics is

explained by two core factors: the growing demands on political leaders which is especially

due to television and secondly, the change in voters’ attitudes and behaviour where party

identification is gradually declining (Curtice & Hunjan 2006; Marsh 2006:2). I will now test

the theory based on the literature as to whether leaders have never been as important as they

are now.

Leaders and the Personalisation of Politics

Firstly, with the evolving role of 24/7 news outlets and the significant growth in the

internet and in particular social media sites, voters are increasingly gaining quicker and more

compressed knowledge from this new form of political communication. The days of voters

reading newspapers as their first port of call for their daily news has to a large extent been

replaced by 90 second news stories, images and an instant supply of breaking news online.

Parties have found themselves under huge pressure to maximise these opportunities to sell

their stall and that in most cases involves the party leader. Why so? Frank Flannery, Director

of Elections for Fine Gael in 2007 believes that leaders can be the most important actor at

times;

Leaders are the primary communicator for the party, a leader has to embody what the party

stands for and communicate what the party stands for. If a leader can’t do that or is fumbling

it or doesn’t believe it or live it…it really destroys the coherence of the message and then it is

hard to punch through.

Flannery 2012

One of the primary roles of the leader is to persuade his/her followers to accept a

particular strand of thought or action (Ahlquist & Levi 2011:6). Because of this, leaders have

13

always been important in elections but with the growth in media concentration surrounding

them, campaigns are increasingly being sought to resemble presidential contests. It has been

noted among senior Fine Gael strategists that the media in Ireland are often in search for a

‘gladiatorial contest’ between party leaders. Such is the attraction of political leaders in the

modern era that there are now various TV shows focusing on our modern day leaders. This

portrayal of political leaders is important in seeking to understand just how much leaders

have come to the centre of the political follower. Holbert uses the example of the popular US

TV show The West Wing to argue that the portrayal of political leaders in a positive light did

lead viewers (potential voters) to hold a more positive image of the presidency and politicians

generally (Holbert 2005: 437-440). Television has certainly brought a greater importance

upon leaders but it has also presented political parties with many challenges. During

campaigns, there is an inefficient amount of resources to follow all the parties’ candidates

and the parties tend to focus attention on the leader (Curtice & Hunjan, 2006:2). The 2011

general election supports this theory where there were a record four televised leader’s debates

with a vast majority of voters intending to watch at least part of them (Stafford 2011: 352).

TV debates between political leaders have become a central aspect to election campaigns in

Ireland since February 1982 but have become even more prominent with time. The 2011

general election witnessed an addition of two more TV debates including one among five

party leaders which was seen as the most important change from previous campaigns (Rafter

2011:7). The growth in television as a primary source for voter’s knowledge gives leaders a

significant opportunity to appeal to less partisan voters;

A broader leader effect is expected in countries where there are a higher percentage of

citizens dependent on television for their political information, since television is the medium

most likely to produce the cognitive and symbolic primacy of the images of the leaders in an

election campaign.

Keeter 1987 cited in Barisione 2009:479

This then allows for the effect of leader’s personalities and characteristics to be

considered which will be discussed shortly. In sum, the demands of new media has resulted

in a move away from traditional methods of political communication adopted by parties to

one where the leader is the principal projector of a party’s image (Mughan & Bean

1989:1165). With the intense focus on political leaders by the media, especially through

television where politics is presented as more personalised (Aarts et al. 2011:19-21), the

argument that there has been a greater personalisation of politics in Ireland is credible. There

14

can be little doubt that this heightened focus on leaders has informally and/or formally

increased their perceived importance as more and more voters see leaders as opposed to party

candidates as the first instance of communicating a particular message. Leaders currently

play their greatest role in elections campaigns. For political parties to develop and survive in

this evolving political climate they must be flexible and adaptable to a more leader-orientated

style of elections which is now more evident now than before.

Voter Dealignment: A more fluid voter

The second contributing factor towards this theory that parliamentary democracies

have become more personalised is related to the gradual decline of party identification

amongst voters. What is striking is that party identification in this study shows Ireland well

below countries like Germany, Spain, the UK, Denmark etc. (Marsh 2006:496-498). Ireland

has seen a gradual erosion of such alignment to a point that it is among the least aligned

countries in Europe (Marsh 2006:491-494). In the 2011 general election, Gallagher and

Marsh (2011:179) found only 25 per cent of voters in Ireland felt ‘close’ to any party; a fall

of three percentage points since the 2002 election. Such a continuing trend should support the

theory that political leaders have never been as important. Why so? The breakdown in long-

term cleavages such as party attachment and socio-economic voting patterns has given rise to

more short-term effects on the vote which includes leader evaluations (Curtice & Hunjan

2006: 2-3). Barisione puts forward the following statement which supports the case that less

partisan voters equates to a greater importance of leaders;

Voters more closely identified with a political party are generally less swayed by the image

and specific identity to the individual who is leader of that party; in other words, they vote for

the party no matter who the leader is.

Barisione 2009:477

If this holds true which we would expect, the argument that political leaders have

become more important has greater credibility. One would expect leaders to have a greater

effect in Ireland than in countries where fewer voters are open to political persuasion.

However, this is not necessarily always the case and is dependent on other variables. The

type of institutional structure such as the electoral system can constrain or enhance the power

of a leader (Aarts et al 2011:5). As will be shown, there are many other factors which can

enhance a leader’s effect in a parliamentary democracy such as Ireland, where, although we

15

would expect the presence of coalition governments to constrain the power of a leader, the

right settings can actually overpower this institutional pull. Nevertheless, political leaders

have never been as important, not just to the media or parties but to voters too; a theory

supported by numerous scholars including Hayes and McAllister;

Election outcomes are now, more than at any time in the past, determined by voters’

assessments of party leaders.

Hayes & McAllister 1977:3

The personalisation of politics arising from the changes in political communication

and a shift in voter’s attitudes as we have just read, has upheld the theory that leaders matter

now more so than ever before. However, it is too generic to make an assumption that leaders

make an impact in elections because the context of a particular election and other important

variables come into the mix to determine as how individual leaders can matter more. We are

then faced with a second question, under what conditions do leaders make more of a

difference in elections?

What conditions can constrain and enhance a leader’s effect?

I have established that there is a growing stage for leaders; they play their greatest

ever role within the media and with more floating voters open for persuasion at election time,

leaders are vital for their own parties too. Therefore with leaders having become most

important in the modern era, we would expect that leaders would have a greater effect on the

vote than before; this is not necessarily true. Evidence is very much divided within the

literature with some scholars arguing there has been mixed evidence or negative leader

evaluations (Schmitt & Ohr 2000). It is therefore much the wiser to look at the conditions

under which leaders’ effects are enhanced and constraint. Such conditions include the

leader’s personality, the voting behaviour of the electorate, the type of election and electoral

system, the size and type of party, the media and the context in which the election is set. As

will be shown, different results can be seen with different settings.

Barisione (2006:475-477) argues that leader evaluations are dependent on the

institutional setting i.e. “the system of government, the structure of choice, and the level of an

election.” The literature on political leadership argues that a leader has a more positive effect

in a presidential system where the focus on the leader is not just symbolic but institutional.

Mughan and Bean’s study of the UK and Australian parliamentary elections show that in

16

parliamentary elections too, leaders do affect the vote (1989:1175). They argue that leaders

can be powerful in this setting too because a key assessment of voter’s evaluations of leaders

is their effectiveness in delivering on their party’s manifesto. Leader effects in parliamentary

elections are further dependent on whether the country operates a majoritarian or proportional

electoral system. Where there is a tendency for majoritarian systems with a two party system

to produce single party governments, leader matter more as there is no divisibility of power

as is the case in coalition governments (Curtice & Hunjan 1989 and Aarts et al. 2011).

Ireland up until 2011 resembled a two and a half party system. Yet, the vast majority of

election campaigns were dominated by both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael; this is best seen by

the main TV debate during elections campaigns which only consisted of the leader of the

government and his opposition counterpart. This two party focus was very much evident in

the 2007 campaign and evidence shows that the choice of Taoiseach was more important than

in 2011 where there was a greater role for Sinn Féin, the Labour Party and Independents

(Marsh & Cunningham 2011:185).

Secondly, the type of party can also determine the leader effect in elections. A good

leader is almost wasted with a small party as was the case with the Mary Harney and the

Progressive Democrats; despite being one of the most popular party leaders in the country at

the time, she failed to develop a lasting image of the party. The literature would support this

claim; “Higher popularity ratings for the leader than for his/her party (or vice versa) among

party voters…are not necessarily a proof of the specific added value brought by the leader in

electoral terms” (Barisione 2009:491. Aarts et al find that leader effects are greater for older

and more established parties because not only are they tend to be more powerful and larger in

size but their leaders ‘play a more important and visible role which – indirectly – might

render their characteristics and qualities more consequential for vote choices.’ (Aarts et. Al,

2011:10). In that case, we would expect Enda Kenny to be in a more powerful and influential

role as his party grew rapidly under his leadership. In fact, the sheer challenge which he

faced when taking up the leadership of Fine Gael would on the face of it make his leadership

even more challenging. He not only had to create a new image for the party and attract

former members and supporters, but carve out a new path and image for the party. Current

Chairperson of the Fine Gael Executive Council, Brian Murphy noted that a leader in

government has a much greater advantage compared to his opponent because when choosing

between two leaders for the job of Taoiseach voters have had time to see the incumbent

exercise power which the opponent can only aspire to (Interview with Brian Murphy 2012).

17

With leaders in opposition unable to exercise power, ultimately the job of the opposition

contender in persuading the electorate oh his/her merits for office is on average much more

demanding.

Thirdly, if parties contesting an election are ideologically similar, their leaders will

matter more so because while the party itself may be similar in nature to its counterpart(s),

leaders can differentiate themselves from each other. The leader has less space to manoeuvre

the party but far more ability to differentiate himself. In Ireland, elections, with the exception

of 2011, have been quite close because both Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil occupy similar

centralist positions and therefore, we can expect leaders to be one of few differing variables.

The absence of an extreme right party for example (see O’Malley 2008), ensures that political

leaders of the main parties in Ireland are more important than would be the case in

ideologically contested elections. The context of the election is also crucial. In 2007, the

election campaign was quite close and the country at the time was enjoying a modest

performance. These healthy economic conditions resulted in voters being less concerned

with policy and more so by the local candidate and choice of Taoiseach with 22 per cent of

voters citing the leader of the country as the most important factor in their voting decision

(RTÉ/Millward Brown Exit Poll 2011:34). With an increasing amount of non-partisan

supporters and in an election which is often dominated by the main parties operating close to

a centralist position, leaders in Ireland have much more scope to appeal to voters.

The fourth condition shaping how leaders can cause an effect in elections is the

demands and behaviour of the electorate. The Irish electorate have consistently shown that

issues of policy and local candidates are the two most central factors in forming how to vote

(Marsh & Cunningham 2011:199). What voters take into account when structuring their vote

is crucial to understanding whether political leaders in certain countries matter more so than

others. On the evidence from the 2007 and 2011 exit poll, the amount of people citing choice

of Taoiseach as a factor affecting their vote choice fell to 7 per cent (RTÉ/Millward Browne

Exit Poll 2011). However, looking at these figures alone does not provide a conclusion to

leadership effects. One critical aspect of political leaders is that they drive party policy and

in evaluating a leader’s effect, one has to take into account support for the party and its

policies (O’Malley 2012:5). Although Enda Kenny’s personal satisfaction ratings were quite

low, he led Fine Gael at a time when it developed its biggest cohort of new policies in

decades. Thus, on the face of it, although leaders per se may not be a serious variable for

18

forming vote choice, they indirectly have an input through policy and the image of the party

which they created.

A country’s media system can also have a facilitating or inhibiting effect on a leader’s

evaluation. Barisione puts forward the theory that certain characteristics of the media can

impact on a leader’s effect: “The degree of the public’s dependence on the television news,

the public service versus commercial nature of the media, the volume of campaign coverage

provided by the media” (Barisione 2009:478). Although issuing a caution over ‘naïve’

assumptions that a greater leader effect in the media translates to a greater leader effect on

voters, Aarts et al. acknowledges the reality that;

It seems extremely unlikely that the gradual change in the way politics and political leaders

are framed in public communication will not leave its marks on an electorate with already

weaker party attachment

Aarts et al. 2011:31

The gradual shift towards a leader-orientated media in some countries can therefore

have more of an impact on a leader’s evaluation then on one which has not. In a climate

where the media’s concentration on leaders is intense, we can expect voter’s to evaluate

leaders in a much greater way than before. This has been supported by the huge growth in

the use of personal satisfaction polls for leaders and coupled with that, a large ascendancy in

the use of televised leader’s debates.

Finally, opinion is very much divided as to whether or not political leaders’

personalities can affect vote choice (King 2002:42). Barisione’s argument put simply is that

where a leader has quite a low popularity level (as seen with Enda Kenny) there cannot be a

positive leader effect (Barisione 2009:487). Interestingly, he puts forward the theory that in

the United States a ‘critical turning point is generally set at the threshold of a 50 per cent

approval rating’ and that in the late 20th

century, six US presidents whose ratings were above

that criteria six months before the vote were all elected (Barisione 2009:487). While we must

distinguish between this presidential system and Ireland’s parliamentary system where parties

and other issues play a far greater role in elections and vote formation, it is noteworthy that

Enda Kenny’s approval ratings did not exceed 50 per cent once during his nine years in

opposition. The literature would put forward the view that in closely contested elections,

short-term considerations such as a leader’s personality, is much more important and

19

secondly, by voters evaluating the personality characteristics of different leaders, they can

distinguish as to whom would be best to cope with unforeseen circumstances (Aarts et al.

2011:3). Whether or not a political leader’s personality matters, they are becoming

increasingly central to election campaigns with the introduction and growing focus of

televised leader’s debates during elections.

These different variables go some way into explaining why some leaders are more

powerful than others and perhaps suggests that it is the context in which leaders operate

rather than the individual leader itself that brings about a greater leader-orientated vote in

certain elections. While the literature on political leadership is in need of more detailed

expansion, we can test certain hypotheses to judge as best we can whether such theories hold

true in particular case studies. Certain conditions such as the electoral system and type of

party which a leader operates in have remained constant from 2007-2011 and so are not

tested in this thesis. I will use three of the above conditions which are relevant to my cases

and from this, three main hypotheses come about:

H1: The first hypothesis will test that leaders matter more so in a closely contested

election where focus on leaders is intensified between those who are in contention for power.

We expect to find a positive correlation between closely contested elections and leaders

impact.

H2: The second hypothesis put forward is that a more leader-focused media will have

a greater effect on a leader’s evaluation. We expect to find that a positive focus on a

particular leader will lead to a more positive evaluation of that leader and vice versa.

H3: My final hypothesis proposes that leaders matter less when the election campaign

is dominated by non-leader issues such as policy for example. This includes taking into

account the context of the election and changes in voting behaviour where more of a focus on

policy as opposed to individual candidates would restrict a leader’s impact.

These three hypotheses will be applied to Enda Kenny’s leadership to test for their

strength in both the 2007 and 2011 general election; two elections set in very different

contexts. It will be interesting to see whether these hypotheses held true in Kenny’s

leadership between both election campaigns or if they differed.

20

CHAPTER FOUR- The Campaigns

This chapter will begin with an account of the general election campaigns of 2007 and

2011 which will provide the circumstances and the context in which each campaign was

fought. A short account of Enda Kenny’s most challenging time as party leader will be

provided and I will then apply my three hypotheses to test whether the effect of Enda

Kenny’s leadership varied or remained constant between both elections. Given the various

conditions under which leader effects are conditional upon, we would expect that a change in

the context of one election to the other would also see the leader effect vary.

Setting the tone: General Election 2007

The 30th

Dáil was dissolved on April 29th

2007 with the campaign beginning the

following day and polling day set for May 24th

(Farrington & Weeks 2008:259). The general

election itself was Kenny’s first as Fine Gael Leader. The party entered the campaign with a

pre-arranged pact with the Labour Party which gave a weight of credibility to the idea of an

alternative government and more importantly, portrayed Kenny as a viable challenger for the

job of Taoiseach. A key cornerstone of the Fine Gael campaign strategy was the idea of ‘a

contract for a better Ireland’ between Kenny and the people; an election tool which paid

dividend for the republicans in 1994 in the US (Rafter 2011: 219). This strategy firmly placed

Enda Kenny at the heart of the Fine Gael campaign in order to convince the electorate that

Kenny was a man of honesty and integrity as opposed to Ahern. Kenny’s televised address

during the party’s Ard Fheis in March of 2007 highlighted the party’s approach to the

election which was to be highly centralised on the leader (Farrington & Weeks 2008:257) ;

“If you enter into this contract with me, you give me a mandate for a better Ireland and I will

deliver it” (Rafter 2011:219). However despite this personalised approach Kenny still

continued to be portrayed negatively by the media at large. Yet, party strategists framed the

party’s campaign around him. Mark Mortell, Deputy Director of Elections for Fine Gael in

2007 gave an insight into the strategy;

The contract concept came around the fact that “you can trust me” and it played to Enda’s

inherent strength of engaging and meeting with people and wasn’t duly effected by the fact

that the commentariat in the media had a different view…we took a decision to go over the

heads of the prevailing view in the media.

Mortell 2012

21

Voters’ assessments of Kenny were conflicted when they met him on the campaign

trail and when he gave media performances;

Kenny was performing strongly on the hustings. Members of the public were greeting him by

his first name. But his natural charm vanished when he arrived into a television or radio

studio. His personality was still not translating under the studio lights. His media persona

was wooden.

Rafter 2011:215

Nevertheless, Enda Kenny remained central to the Fine Gael campaign whereas

Fianna Fáil was more involving of its frontbench and key spokespeople. Figures from the

Irish times database showed that during the campaign Enda Kenny appeared over 230 times

with Richard Bruton referenced over 50 times; Michael Noonan 13 times and Leo Varadkar

(not yet elected as a TD) 5 times. In comparison, Bertie Ahern was acknowledged over 250

times with Brian Cowen mentioned almost 100 times, Brian Lenihan over 30 times and

Micheál Martin just over 40 times (Irish Times Online Database). This election was very

much between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. The media coverage of the campaign witnessed an

almost presidential contest between Enda Kenny and Bertie Ahern.

The leader’s debate has become the major set-piece event in recent general elections in

Ireland…the 2007 debate achieved a higher audience level than the two previous debates in

1997 and 2002…the debate had an average audience of 914,000.

Rafter 2011:228

Many commentators believed Ahern had edged victory (Bowcott, Guardian News

2007). The fascination from the media on the two leaders was also down to the poor

performance of the Labour Party who failed to make any headway during the campaign.

Voters in particular latched onto this two horse race for Taoiseach. In a TNS/MRBI poll for

the Irish Times taken in the second week of the campaign, Kenny’s satisfaction level was 47%

as he began to gain closer to Ahern (54%) (TNS/MRBI 2007 in Farrington & Weeks

2008:280-284). Over one million euro was bet on the election with Paddy Power alone; a

huge rise from the previous €75,000 in 2002 (Rafter 2011:235). Kenny had benefited from

the controversy over Ahern’s finances early on in the campaign and was favourite with the

bookmakers as choice of Taoiseach; yet by polling day Ahern had regained favouritism due

to the lack of strength from Fine Gael’s frontbench in responding to Fianna Fáil claims on

22

economic policy. In the end, Fianna Fáil was returned to power with Fine Gael gaining 20

seats but more importantly, the campaign showed that Kenny was a viable alternative as

Taoiseach despite the lack of strength from the party’s frontbench.

Fine Gael themselves were aware that they hadn’t the team to challenge Fianna Fáil in

the last week of the campaign where the momentum returned to the incumbents;

People say in retrospect that we should have attacked them on the economic mismanagement

but we hadn’t the people to do it- only Richard Bruton had economic credibility. At the end

of the campaign, Cowen wiped him out…we didn’t have the Leos or the Noonans.

Flannery 2012

The 2007 general election campaign was set in a context where the outcome was far

less certain than previous elections. Fine Gael’s campaign was heavily focused on its leader

to try and attract support from Bertie Ahern. The media was engaged in post-debate scraps

over which leader performed best and given the Labour Party only received 10 per cent of the

vote, this election was always going to be between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil; and more so

between their respective leaders. The 2007 election reflected such a leader-orientated

campaign which showed 22 per cent of people citing the choice of Taoiseach as the most

important factor in making their vote choice (Millward Brown Lansdowne/RTÉ Exit Poll

2011:34). But in 2011, all was to change.

2010-2011: A defining period for Enda Kenny’s Leadership’s

Enda Kenny witnessed his most turbulent time as party leader after the local and

European election success of 2009. In February of 2010 he was faced with the departure of

newly elected TD George Lee who criticised Kenny’s leadership for failing to award him an

active role in contributing towards the party’s economic policy. In a poll taken just two

weeks after Lee’s resignation, 43 per cent of voters said they would vote for Fine Gael if

Enda Kenny was not leader (O’Leary & Liston 2011:182). A Millward Brown Lansdowne

poll that same month found that Kenny’s satisfaction level fell to just 26 per cent; his second

lowest rating since becoming leader in 2002 and worse still, 49 per cent of voters didn’t

believe he’d lead Fine Gael into the next election (Sunday Independent/ Millward Brown

Lansdowne February 2010). Moreover, an opinion poll in early June showed for the first

time in Irish politics that the Labour Party was the most popular party in Ireland with Fine

Gael four points behind (Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI June 2010). This was despite the

23

momentum which the party conjured when becoming the largest party at European and at

local council level, just 8 months previously. As a result, rumours of discomfort within the

party which had been gathering momentum reached the point where Kenny was challenged

by his own deputy leader and finance spokesman Richard Bruton. In what was Kenny’s

shortest yet most testing challenge since 2002, he surprised many in clinching victory in such

style. He showed his opponents within the party and indeed his critics in the media who

plagued his career as Fine Gael leader that he was made of steel. As Mark Mortell notes;

Political parties in Ireland can be described as a loose confederation of sole-traders. People

gather under a banner because it suits those sole-traders to do that. People start looking at

their own prospects; the only person who cares about the confederation is the leader.

Everyone else is looking after his own patch.

Mortell 2012

Although Fine Gael was overtaken again by the Labour Party in a second poll in

September, Kenny’s strong performance during the heave secured his tenure as leader.

Despite his never ending challenges and constant media scrutiny which plagued his career, he

was assured to lead Fine Gael into what was to be its most successful general election since

the party’s foundation.

Everything changes: General Election 2011

As chapter two concluded, the context of the 2011 general election could not have

differed more so from the previous election with the country losing its economic and political

sovereignty and with an outgoing government never as unpopular. The campaign to elect the

31st Dáil began on the first day of spring 2011 with polling day set for Friday February 25

th

(Lord 2011:8).

Fine Gael entered the campaign knowing it was going to lead the next government

with various opinion polls showing the party commanding support levels in between 34-36

per cent while the Labour Party was in the low 20s and Fianna Fáil stuck in the mid to high

teens (Sunday Business Post/Red C February 6th

2011). However, a Red C poll for the

Sunday Business Post a week earlier showed Enda Kenny as third most preferred choice as

Taoiseach (Sunday Business Post/Red C January 2011). Fine Gael’s electoral strategy was

based on its confidential report, the ‘2010-2011 Election Plan.’ The party brought key

strategists in to develop a plan to respond to the new political climate which had in gulfed the

24

country. Fine Gael’s strategy was about presenting a strong united team led by Enda Kenny

who had a 5 point plan to get Ireland working again.

Rather than Kenny as the sole voice of the party’s campaign, spokespeople such as

Michael Noonan who had taken up the Finance portfolio after the heave and others such as

Simon Coveney, James Reilly, Leo Varadkar, Richard Bruton, Phil Hogan and Brian Hayes

all became the drivers of Fine Gael’s new policies. In contrast to the 2007 election, Irish

times references to Michael Noonan increased by over 500 per cent and 700 per cent in the

case of Leo Varadkar while Enda Kenny’s references increased slightly but the word ‘Fine

Gael’ reported a rise from 450 references to almost 600 (Irish Times Online Database 2012).

The party itself rather than the leader was more involved in policy announcements than in

2007 as Kenny travelled the country on a pace few could have imagined. This election was

more focused on policy than any recent gone by and it would be Fine Gael’s team who would

be central to their campaign. However, rather than Fine Gael strategists taking Kenny’s

perceived weakness into account when decentralising the electoral strategy, the context of the

election dominated their approach;

The view that was taken in the party was that in 2011 people wanted to know there was a plan

to get us out of the crisis. A campaign around trust me I can do it regardless of who the figure

was, whether it was Enda Kenny or whether it was the Lord Jesus who had come down off the

cross wasn’t going to work. People had lost faith in politics. What we are seeking to do in

2011 with people in a very depressed position was to say there is a way out of this crisis and

we have boiled it down to a very specific 5 points.

Murphy 2012

Enda Kenny although refusing to take part in a televised leader’s debate with TV3 ,

opted to take part in three debates. For Fine Gael, the ball was in their court in how they

handled the TV debates issue;

What we knew was that we had to get this guy out engaging and meeting with people,

engaging and letting people’s confidence build. [There was] a roar and cry from the media

for more than one debate ,there were up to seven options being presented to us and that was

going to take the leader, whose strength was all about meeting people out of the game for

huge tracks of time, that would have been utterly stupid. Based on the polls we knew they

wanted our guy so were a bit more selective.

Mortell 2012

25

Kenny’s challenge in the three TV debates was simple as one strategist put it; “We

had it won, along as Enda didn’t fall off the podium we had it won.” Fine Gael continued to

climb in the polls. Starting at 33 per cent, the party gradually gained momentum throughout

the campaign to a point where it was in touching distance of an overall majority territory- 39-

40 per cent. Enda Kenny’s personal satisfaction ratings rose too and a Red C poll for the

Sunday Business Post on February 21st showed for the very first time that he was the most

preferred choice as Taoiseach;

Kenny started the campaign at the end of January, trailing both Martin and Gilmore, with just

19% of the electorate believing he would make the best next Taoiseach. In just three weeks

of campaigning he has completely reversed this…Kenny doesn’t appear to be quite the barrier

he once was to undecided voters.

Red C February 2011

The Labour Party’s campaign was built around the notion of ‘Gilmore for Taoiseach’

and in similarity to Fine Gael in 2007, focused almost entirely on its leader. But it didn’t

work for them; “I couldn’t help think the Labour Party campaign had been written, designed

and prepared in October 2010, it hadn’t adopted from what had happened in the interim”

(Mortell 2012). Fine Gael managed to pull off two huge PR stunts with Enda Kenny meeting

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and EU Commission President José Manuel Barrosso

during the campaign. As the polls showed, people were starting to see Kenny as prime

ministerial material. The last four to five days of the campaign seen Fine Gael support fall by

3-4 per cent with some commentators suggesting that it was Kenny’s poor performances in

the eleventh hour that lost the party its overall majority. However, it is the belief of Fine

Gael’s election strategists that it was ‘some of the more bullish guys in the party who started

talking about an overall majority’ coupled with Labour’s late surge that drove Fine Gael

down to 36 per cent on Election Day.

This election was about policy as voters were deeply concerned with the future of the

economy. Asked to choose from a list of factors effecting vote choice, those citing policy as

the biggest factor rose to 41 per cent in 2011 from 24 per cent in 2007 with the choice of

Taoiseach down to just 7 per cent from 22 per cent in 2007 (Marsh 2011:34). Nevertheless,

on February 25th

, voters, despite all their concerns had given Enda Kenny the clearest and

most sizable majority in the history of the state. Enda Kenny was now Taoiseach.

26

Applying the hypotheses

I will now apply the hypotheses developed in chapter three to test the importance of

Enda Kenny in both elections. Following this, I will provide an overall conclusion.

The first hypothesis expects leaders to matter more so in closely contested elections.

In early May 2007, the combined Labour and Fine Gael vote was 39 per cent while the

outgoing government of Fianna Fáil and the PDs were at 38 per cent (Irish

Independent/Millward Brown Lansdowne February 2011). The election was one of the

closest fought and as a result, a ferocious battle between the two main leaders in contention to

lead the next government began. Punters heavily engaged in the betting for who would be

Taoiseach and it remained one of the central questions throughout the campaign. The RTÉ

exit poll showed that when asked to choose from a series of factors which best described

voters’ choice, 22 per cent were most motivated to vote the way they by the choice of

Taoiseach; signalling how important political leaders were in 2007.

The 2011 election was a much different election. As Chief of Staff to Enda Kenny

Mark Kennelly put it, Fine Gael’s campaign this time was “not predicated on shouting the

loudest about having a presidential leader (Interview with Kennelly 2011). Fine Gael’s

campaign had a corporate feel to it with months of in depth market research culminating in

the five point plan. Fine Gael was responding to the new political and economic climate

which the country was in and to the reality that this election would not be won by centralising

its campaign on the leader. In a Red C poll for Paddy Power released a week into the

campaign, the outgoing Fianna Fáil-Green coalition polled at 21 per cent while Fine Gael and

Labour polled at 56 per cent (Paddy power/Red C February 2011). The formation of the new

government was known for some time. This election was not as focused on individual

leaders despite the increase in TV debates and Labour’s unsuccessful campaign of focusing

on ‘Gilmore for Taoiseach’ proved just that;

A message along the lines of Gilmore for Taoiseach for four weeks or Kenny for Taoiseach

just wasn’t going to work in 2011, it worked for other people…certainly in 2002 for Bertie

and even in 2007 too but at the time the economy was going well.

Murphy 2012

The exit poll in 2011 showed that those citing choice of Taoiseach as the most

influential factor in their vote formation collapsed from 22 per cent to seven per cent. The

27

hypothesis therefore holds that leaders in closely contested elections do matter more because

there is a shift towards leaders to differentiate between party support. The 2011 general

election was not a closely contested election because Enda Kenny was almost certain to

become Taoiseach in a Fine Gael led government. We can then conclude that Enda Kenny

was more important in the 2007 general election than in 2011.

The second hypothesis expects to find that a more leader-orientated media will

increase the leader effect in elections. While this would not have changed significantly in the

space of four years, Kenny gained much more respect from the media after witnessing his

resilience and skill in pulling off a political masterpiece in seeing off Bruton during the heave.

In 2007, the media was much more fascinated on the contest between Enda Kenny and Bertie

Ahern and before that in 2002 with Michael Noonan and Ahern. As well as that, the context

of the 2007 election provided for much more short-term effects on the vote such as a leader

effect given the close proximity in support for the two possible governments. The first half

of the campaign was dominated by the personal finances of the sitting Taoiseach and as the

campaign continued, the media continued to question Enda Kenny’s experience and ability

for the job of Taoiseach. However, in 2011, doubts about Enda Kenny being up to the job

were largely side lined as he was virtually certain of leading the next government. Although

leaders mattered much less in the outcome of the most recent election, a record number of

four televised leader’s debates took place. As Mark Mortell put it, there was a “roar and cry

from the media for more than one debate.” Enda Kenny’s decision not to take part in the

TV3 debate become one of the most dominant stories but it had little effect if any on voters.

This election was also very much leader-orientated with those in the media finding

themselves fixated on the Labour’s ‘Gilmore for Taoiseach’ campaign. The intense focus on

leaders by the media had seen little change from 2007. Fine Gael was well on track to lead

the next government before the campaign officially begun and as a result there was no

presidential contest between two leaders. The TV debates ensured that political leaders still

remained a key feature of the campaign. Yet, there was more focus on Enda Kenny than in

2007 as the reality began to sink in that he was almost certain to become Taoiseach. The

hypothesis that a more leader-orientated media will bring about a greater leader effect gives

mixed results. In 2007, the contest between Kenny and Ahern clearly impacted on voter’s

choice but in 2011 even with a surge in TV debates between leaders, the effect on voters was

much smaller. The context of the election was more so about policy than the presidential

type contest seen in 2007.

28

The final hypothesis expects leaders to matter more so when the election in question

is not dominated by non-leader issues such as policy and local candidates. The account of the

2007 and 2011 election has shown this to be the case;

Asked to choose between several factors in terms of what was the most important in their

decision, voters chose between the policies set out by parties (41%)…and choosing Taoiseach

(3%)…Typically the choice of Taoiseach is more important (22% in 2007) and policies less

so (24% in 2007) suggesting that issues were more important this time.

Marsh 2011:34

The 2007 general election campaign was not as built around policy given the modest

performance of the economy and so, short-term effects on the vote such as leader effects had

much more electoral space to develop. However, 2011 was nothing short of an earthquake

election (Gallagher & Marsh 2011). Voters were concerned about the future direction of the

country and demanded to know the policies set out by the different parties. This was seen in

the nature of the Fine Gael campaign which moved away from the 2007 approach to develop

a strategy that was based around a team of key spokespeople outlining a wide range of

policies to get the country working. The debates were very much policy focused. In the last

few days of the campaign the Labour Party attacked Fine Gael policies as opposed to

engaging in personalised attacks on Enda Kenny as was done by Fianna Fáil in in 2007

(Rafter 2011:233). Leaders did matter much more so in 2007 as that was the demands of the

electorate at the time. The Labour Party’s campaign in 2011 was more fitted to that of 2007

because now, everything had changed.

In sum, leaders do not have a universal effect on the vote and are rather constraint by

a number of conditions; most importantly the context of the election. The context decides not

just the party’s approach to a campaign but the role of their leader. Fine Gael responded in

2007 to a campaign built around challenging Bertie Ahern for the job of Taoiseach but in

2011, the party developed a completely new strategy focused on presenting a strong united

team with a coherent and relevant set of policy proposals. The account of the 2007 and 2011

election provides the following conclusion; the leader does not shape the context rather the

context shapes the leader’s role.

29

CHAPTER FIVE

Conclusion

There can be no doubt that political leaders now play their greatest ever role in the

game of politics. With television becoming the main source of voter’s knowledge, a less

partisan electorate and a more leader-orientated media, political leaders have been given a

growing political space to operate within. Seldom does a news day to go by where voters

won’t hear, see or read about political leaders. Televised leader’s debates have brought

leader’s personalities into the fray and whether they serve as entertainment or something

much more substantive and relevant to voter’s behaviour remains a topic for debate.

However, despite all this limelight which leaders now enjoy, they do not unilaterally impact

on elections. Political leaders are constraint by the contextual and institutional structures

which surround them. Such conditions include the type of issues dominating the campaign,

the openness of the campaign and the electoral system. But a combination of the right factors

can see leaders make quite a difference in an election. We must not forget that although

election campaigns have become dominated by leader’s nationwide tours and televised

leader’s debates, there still exist more powerful actors in parliamentary democracies. As has

been shown in this thesis, a leader’s effect is very much shaped by the context in which

he/she is operating in.

This thesis has shown the remarkable journey of how a political leader who was

written off, underestimated and at times the subject of ridicule; succeeded in becoming the

leader of a country whose future was never as uncertain nor its people never more volatile.

This dilemma of ‘how did he do it’ given his unpopularity and many challenges shows that

political leadership is indeed a complex concept. Were Richard Bruton to be leader would

Fine Gael have done any better? Probably not; perhaps they would have done worse. Fine

Gael would not have been in the fighting position it was in during the last election were it not

for the ferocious work done by Enda Kenny. The literature fails to take into account such

indirect leader effects such as the rebuilding of a political party as a factor in determining a

leader’s electoral impact. This is a large weakness at the heart of the debate on whether

leaders impact in elections. Without Enda Kenny, Fine Gael would probably not have been

the party it is today- rebuilt and re-energised with an influx of young talented spokespeople

on a new party image.

30

Leaders also play a key role in orchestrating policy too and so, when we look at exit

polls which show choice of Taoiseach as one of the less important factors, perhaps scholars

are missing the bigger picture. Leadership involves much more than the individual on a

platform.

The 2007 and 2011 general election strategies deployed by Fine Gael have shown that

Enda Kenny’s role differed somewhat. This was not because Enda Kenny was deliberately

‘hidden’ in 2011 but more so because the party itself was responding to the unprecedented

context in which the country found itself in. Enda Kenny did not win the 2011 election for

Fine Gael but he didn’t lose it either. Many of those such as James Reilly, Leo Varadkar,

Mairead McGuinness, Ciaran Cannon and a host of others may not have been even there were

it not for Kenny’s work in providing the party with a complete renovation. Since being

elected Taoiseach, Kenny has surprised all but his few long-term supporters. His personal

satisfaction ratings since becoming Taoiseach soared to nearly 60% and his energy,

commitment and passion has his opponents taken aback over the previous 12 months. Enda

Kenny’s intriguing journey is quite a complex one but offers a great insight into just how

leaders make a marginal difference in elections, despite their ascending rise to fame.

31

Appendix

Interviews

Mark Mortell, former Deputy Director of Elections for Fine Gael and Director at

Fleischman Hillard. Interview conducted at Fleischman Hillard, Dublin, March

9th

2012.

Brian Murphy, current Chairperson of the Fine Gael Executive Council and

special advisor to Minister Leo Varadkar. Interview conducted at the Department

of Transport, Tourism and Sport, Dublin, March 2nd

2012.

Frank Flannery, former Director of Elections for Fine Gael and senior party

strategist. Interview conducted in Fine Gael headquarters, Dublin, March 2nd

2012.

Mark Kennelly, chief of staff to An Taoiseach Enda Kenny. Interview conducted

in the Department of the Taoiseach, October 25th

2011.

Professor Robert Elgie, Lecturer in political science at the School of Law and

Government, Dublin City University. Interview conducted in DCU, February 28th

2012.

32

Bibliography

Aarts, Kees; Blais, André and Schmitt, Hermann. 2011. Political leaders and Democratic

Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ahlquist, S. John & Levi, Margaret. 2011. ‘Leadership: What It Means, What it Does,

and What We Want to Know About It’. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 1-24.

Barisione, Mauro. 2009. ‘So, What Difference Do Leaders Make? Candidates’ Images

and the “Conditionality” of Leader Effects on Voting’. Journal of Elections, Public

Opinion and Parties, 19 (4), 473-500.

Bowcott, Owen 2007. ‘Ahern edges ahead after TV debate.’ Published in the Guardian.

Curtice, John and Hunjan, Sarinder 2006. ‘The Impact of Leadership evaluations on

voting behaviour: Do the rules matter?’ CREST, working paper, (110).

Farrington, Chris and Weeks, Liam. 2008. Irish Political Studies Data Yearbook 2008.

The Journal of the Political Studies Association of Ireland, 23 (2).

Gallagher, Michael and Marsh, Michael 2011. How Ireland voted 2011: The full story of

Ireland’s earthquake election. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

George, Alexander L and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case Studies and theory development

in the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hayes, B.C., and McAllister, I. 1997. ‘Gender Party Leaders and Election Outcomes in

Australia, Britain, and the United States’ Comparative Political Studies, 30: 3-6.

Heffernan, Richard. 2005. ‘Why the Prime Minister cannot be a President: Comparing

Institutional Imperatives in Britain and America’ Parliamentary Affairs, 58 (1).

Heffernan, Richard. 2005a. ‘Exploring (and Explaining) the British Prime Minister.

British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 7.

Holbert, Lance, R. 2005. ‘A Typology for the Study of Entertainment Television and

Politics’ American Behavioural Scientist, 49 (3), 437-440.

Irish Independent/Millward Brown Lansdowne poll published February 16th

2011

http://www.imsl.ie/downloads/IRISH%20INDEPENDENT%2012th-

14th%20FEB%202011.pdf

Irish Times Database Online. Available at www.irishtimes.com Last Accessed 8 March

2012.

Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll published June 11th

2011.

Karvonen, Lauri. 2010. The Personalisation of Politics: a study of parliamentary

democracies. Colchester: ECPR.

33

King, Anthony. 2002. Do Leader’s Personalities Really Matter? In: King Leader’s

Personalities and Outcomes of Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University.

Lord, Miriam. 2011. The Campaign. In: Collins, Stephens Nealon's Guide to the 31st Dáil

& 24th Seanad. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan. P10-12

Mancini, Paolo. 2011. ‘Leader, president, person: Lexical ambiguities and interpretive

implications.’ European Journal of Communication, 26 (1)

Marsh, Michael. 2011. Poll position. In: Collins, Stephens Nealon's Guide to the 31st

Dáil & 24th Seanad. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan. P32-35

Marsh, Michael and Cunningham, Kevin. 2011. A Positive Choice, or Anyone but Fianna

Fáil? In: Gallagher, Michael and Marsh, Michael How Ireland Voted 2011: The Full

Story of Ireland's Earthquake Election. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 185.

Marsh, Michael. 2006. ‘Party identification in Ireland: An insecure anchor for a floating

voter party system. Electoral Studies, 25 (3).

Millward Brown Lansdowne/RTÉ exit poll, published February 26th

2011.

Mughan, Anthony and Bean, Clive. 1989. ‘Leadership Effects in Parliamentary Elections

in Australia and Britain’. American Political Science Review, 83 (4), 1165-1179.

O’Leary, Eimear and Liston, Vanessa. 2011. Irish Political Studies Databook. The

Journal of the Political Studies Association of Ireland, 26 (2).

O’Malley, Eoin. 2008. ‘Why is there no radical right party in Ireland’? West European

Politics, 31 (5), pp960-977.

O’Malley, Eoin. 2011. Leadership matters but how? Western European Politics,

forthcoming.

O'Rourke, Sean. 2011. ‘From there to here.’ In: Deirdre McCarthy RTE The Week In

Politics: ELECTION 2011 & the 31st Dáil. Dublin: RTÉ.

Poguntke, Thomas and Webb, Paul (Eds). 2005. The presidentialisation of politics: a

comparative study of modern democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rafter, Kevin. 2011. The road to power: How Fine Gael made history. Dublin: New

Island.

Rafter, Kevin. 2011a. ‘Assessing the Irish General Election of 2011: A Roundtable’. New

Hibernian Review.

Schmitt, Hermann and Ohr, Dieter. 2000. ‘Are Party Leaders Becoming More Important

in German Elections? Leader Effects on the Vote in Germany, 1961-1998’. Delivered at

the 2000 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriot

Wardman Park, Washington DC.

34

Stafford, Peter. 2011. ‘The 2011 General Election in Ireland: The Political Impact of the

Irish Recession’. Representation, 47 (3), 343-356.

Sunday Business Post/ Red C January 30th

2011- ‘Runners & Riders for GE 2011’

Sunday Business Post/Red C February 6th

2011- ‘Tracker poll’

Sunday Business Post/Red C February 21st 2011- ‘Can Fine Gael win a Majority?’

Sunday Independent/Millward Brown Lansdowne published February 12th

2010.

Taylor, Sara. 2011. Financial crisis in the European Union: The cases of Greece and

Ireland. Available at http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-09202011-160932/ Last

Accessed 25 February 2012.