JUST a year ago we were facing a dramatic change in the political landscape. Fianna Fáil was bracing itself to face Armageddon. Serious question marks would hang over the future of Ireland’s most successful political organisation. One year on and those questions have not gone away. Fianna Fail has learned that it cannot take anything for granted. Its poll position has not improved in the intervening time, but such was the state it found itself in last year that this alone may be seen as some kind of stabilisation.

Much more will be required in the time ahead, however, and the party still needs to demonstrate a real change in how it acts and how it talks if it is to continue its survival. Many at the bottom get this. They are listening to the talk from neighbours and friends everyday in pubs and workplaces. The jury is still out for those at the top, but it is only in this coming year that they can prove that they have the nerve to take some risks and really embrace change.

In a strange way while the numbers of the political landscape changed, the turf wars would be immediately familiar to any observer from Ireland’s political past. Sinn Fein still operates in an environment more favourable to their policies and ideas than ever before, yet like Fianna Fail they are somewhat stagnant. Yes, the polls have shown slight rises but, given the environment and the difficulties the government face, SF strategists will know that some real risks are required on their part if they are to break into the mid-twenties in a poll. They took risks and moved from their past before during the peace process and may have to resurrect that spirit in order to broaden their appeal again.

Many people see a battle between FF and SF. This battle is non-existent at this stage. Last March it was very likely, with FF so weak there was a real danger that the republican leanings within FF would cause organisational units and representatives at local level to defect to SF as the new coming force. For their part, SF seemed primed to expand its organisation overnight through the assimilation of FF units. Up to the presidential election this remained a very real risk. Many in FF still felt that SF were not of the same mould as others, that while they differed on policy this was a party they got on with in terms of personality, they worked well during the peace process and had gained a healthy respect among grassroots.

In the early stages of the presidential campaign it looked like it was going to be SF raising the austerity issue, raising the budget, raising cuts on the campaign trail. While nothing to do with the presidency it was everything to do with SF policy and opposition. More than a few saw it as a real chance for SF to become the real voice of opposition to the government and that may have attracted a few more souls away from FF. That all changed with the Frontline programme, when Martin McGuinness showed that the campaign was not about SF policy, but rather his own result in key constituencies. It was about stopping the ex-FF man, even if that meant assisting the government. At least that was how FF voters saw it and in one moment SF became the same as all the rest in their mind. The fear of mass defections had passed.

SF and FF are not in a position to battle with each other for votes. Both are chasing a very different market. SF has decided that the time is right to attempt to unify the hard left under its banner. This is not new; an observer from a century ago would recognise this plan. Sinn Fein is not concerned with FF therefore, it has other targets. Firstly and most obviously it is aiming at the Labour party. If Sinn Fein wants to unite the left then it must smash the hold the Labour party has. Labour has occupied a space of what might be termed ‘popular leftism’ or what many see as a sensible left, certainly endeavouring to bring a sense of strong social policy but admitting there are limitations.

The problem at the moment is that people are becoming obsessed with ‘absolutes’ and tend to like strong or hard voices whether they be right or wrong. SF have another longer term target which will be to eventually sweep up the left wing independent seats and those of socialists and People Before Profit. These can wait, however, until SF is in a slightly stronger position and it has finished its battle with Labour.

Labour has every reason to be worried. On its more centrist wing it will find FF knocking on the door trying to steal back some of the votes lost to it. Labour cannot keep both camps happy here and may decide it is just as well to cede some of this back to FF in an attempt to regain strong left wing credentials to fight SF with. Other than regaining some lost votes, FF knows it has no major beef with Labour, and it knows that there is nothing to be gained from a turf war between them except to open the door further for SF.

On the other hand FF can see where its real battle lies. Against FG. Plus ca change. While the hard left is tearing itself apart the rest of the spectrum which carries the largest amount of votes traditionally is still pretty much open. FF is still much weakened and taking on a powerful FG machine is no small task. In addition, FF face a very big danger that Micheál Martin and all the strategists must be aware of. FG comfortably occupies the centre right space. There is no point going further to the right as the PDs have proven that this is a dead space and filled with policies equally as questionable as anything from the extreme left.

FF must attempt to do what it has always done, to occupy the absolute centre, to be driven by pragmatism. When FF in its past has followed this route it has produced good leaders and politicians like Lemass, Reynolds, McSharry. It is when FF has allowed itself to sway too far in one ideological direction that it lost course, simply because the party is not really a believer in these ideologies. In the last decade it ended up with right wing taxation policy on a left wing spending platform and threw pragmatism out the window in favour of populism.

The problem for FF is that those who are on the right of its policy spectrum, while often not as numerous, are very vocal and are almost always obsessed with moving FF to the right and following that ideology blindly. FF will need to be careful as they engage with FG because the temptation to do this and the calls for it will increase but they will end up moving away from their base if they do.

Some still think an FG/FF coalition is possible. I think this is further away than ever, but I could be wrong. However, if FF were to enter coalition with FG anytime soon it would be the end of FF. For all the talk of policy and left and right, politics all over the world is still personality driven and FF and FG do not share a personality. Both parties also know that it would serve neither in the long run. SF would love this eventuality, of course, as it would mean that if Labour were tainted by government, and now left to opposition, SF could then finish off the remnants and become the new force with only its age old adversary the FG family standing before it.

Yes, we changed the numbers and the dynamic but the battle lines remain just the same as before. In the last century it seemed FF, FG and Labour had pretty much settled the arguments on politics and all the fighting for independence and civil wars had boiled down to this political system that did seem to have advanced the country in some respects over the last 80 years and therefore people settled around the three big parties.

Now it seems all those questions are up for grabs again: an end to civil war politics? More likely we are in the grip of the questions of the 1920s more firmly than ever before and so called new voices have not changed this but only added to it. As FF heads into its Ard Fheis and starts to attempt serious recovery we can safely say that the outcome of that recovery plan and of the various turf wars in the next few years may dictate the shape of politics for the next century.

Johnny Fallon is a political commentator and Author of ‘Dynasties: Irish Political Families’