The Cedar Lounge Revolution

A most fascinating – and arguably somewhat contradictory – editorial in the Irish Times [sub required] today which in cuts to the heart of what this whole shambles is about – both in terms of laying out both perspectives and also the genuine dichotomy facing the Progressive Democrats.

First up it notes that “So, we are to hold our noses. The Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrat Coalition Government is safe, the Opposition parties didn’t quite come up to the wire and the semantics over the difference between the loans and gifts received by the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, in the circumstances in which he received them while he was minister for finance in 1993 and 1994, won the day. Nothing that was done was wrong”. This is a point I’ve made before, whatever about the actual nature of the issue the opposition has acted in a very indecisive fashion. I’ve attributed this in part to one aspect of the electoral contest – the fear of provoking a backlash from an Ahern sympathetic electorate, but the IT considers that it is really due to “Nobody [being] ready for the general election. Not Fianna Fáil, not Michael McDowell in his first couple of weeks as leader of the PDs, not the Fine Gael party which wants to agree policies for a programme of alternative government with the Labour Party”.

Reasonably enough the IT asks largely rhetorically ‘is whether timing takes precedence over principles in politics?’ and answers it by saying ‘It would seem so on all sides of the House’.

It forensically details the main points in the Taoiseach’s statement, and his defence that as it was unsolicited and a purely personal matter unattached to his political life.

The IT rather attempts to have it’s cake and eat it when it notes that: “It is important to emphasise that Mr Ahern broke no law. But, how many unworthy others have we heard, in the exposing of the political culture of recent years, saying that they broke no laws, no ethics, no tax code. Has every act to be governed by guidelines and legislation?” but then goes on to say “His error is that it shouldn’t be done at all. It is wrong for a serving member of government to receive monies from personal friends for any purposes”. True, absolutely true. But it slightly evades the point that although we should do certain things without the sanction of law often there are gray areas in which such actions while not illegal can to some extent be explained away, particularly by personal circumstance, and therefore it’s absolutely necessary to have laws or guidelines. The paradox is that it was Ahern, as much – indeed arguably more so than most – who has established a codified framework. This isn’t simple hypocrisy, it is unfortunately an inability to see the wood for the trees on a matter which was personal but had inevitable ramifications with regard to his political life. In the absence of such guidelines there is little point in wringing hands and tearing out of hair thirteen years later. What did, incidentally, for Haughey was the fact that he did break the law quite comprehensively in relation to taxation and worse actually declined to cooperate with the Moriarty Tribunal. Ray Burke received monies – which the Tribunals determined were corrupt – which were not declared for tax. The opposite is the case here where Ahern cooperated with the Tribunal and has fairly easily seen off any issue of taxation regarding the monies he was given.

I guess this is also a generational and transitional phase as the last of those linked into clear venality begin to leave the stage. Ahern is a curious, and as I’ve noted paradoxical, figure in all this. A man of very limited interest in the material trappings of power, the charge that he might be corrupt was not openly entertained by the opposition. As late as this morning on Morning Ireland, RTE, a Fine Gael spokesman clearly stated that they were not accusing him of corruption. Instead it was that Ahern should resign because he had taken the money and not seen a problem with it. But this introduces a different issue. That same Fine Gael spokesman found it difficult to square this particular circle since he then mentioned George Redmond et al, and essentially asked if nothing had progressed since their corruption. Either the issue is one of corruption or not. If it’s corrupt it’s corrupt and therefore the full force of the oppositions ire should have been exercised. If it’s not, then there must be some sort of extenuating circumstances. Could it be that the circumstances the Taoiseach proposes are such that they do provide at least a fig leaf of extenuation? Could it be this that blunts their charges? Again note that no serious effort has been made to bring him down, nor have serious charges – say of corruption – been thrown at him by the opposition. One asks why. Threads on various political boards resound with such charges, but in the media or in the parliament that word isn’t used.

Anyhow, back to the editorial, it closes with: “His error is that it shouldn’t be done at all. It is wrong for a serving member of government to receive monies from personal friends for any purposes. The political situation would be more comfortable if Mary Harney could adjudicate on this set of circumstances. The new PD leader, Michael McDowell, has a hard call which will determine whether his party is radical or redundant”.

I agree with the first statement entirely. However, is it a resigning matter? This money was given at a point when no code was in place. And Ahern made an at least superficially reasonable case that such monies could be considered as part of a spectrum excluded by later codes – monies which might cover legal or health fees.

Yet this is a fascinating statement as regards Mary Harney. Is it implying that she would have decided differently to McDowell or that she is somehow better placed than McDowell to arbitrate on issues of personal morality as regards Ahern? If so how would the IT take it had she chosen to remain in government, which in one sense she implicitly did since according to news reports the decision of the Parliamentary party was unanimous? The last sentence is also curious, one presumes that the editorial was penned after McDowell’s appearance on the plinth at Leinster House, so what further call is he being asked to make? Here we see a nascent civil war for the soul of the PDs laid bare…

Frankly I never saw this as a resigning matter for Ahern, and doubt that the probity demanded of him was displayed by all his opponents during the same time period, but lest you think I’m simply slipping into ‘whataboutery’ I hasten to add I’m not. What Ahern did was deeply inappropriate, foolish and should have been brought into the public domain much earlier. Simply put he should, even if we take his line on the manner in which it was paid, have repaid the money much sooner. The manner in which it was handled merely compounded the problem as Wagger has written on Irish Election. In some respects it’s a pity we have no impeachment mechanism, something that will sanction a TD short of resignation – because I feel that such a process would be appropriate.

But I hesitate to hang a man on the basis of a code which wasn’t extant at the time of his purported infringement of moral ethical norms – and which by his own word was in relation to a specific personal matter. It’s not much cover, it may well be that it’s not nearly enough if other facts come to light – but in the absence of those facts I would tend to argue that the judgement of the Progressive Democrats – whether made from self-interest or not – was essentially correct and no more or less ‘ethical’ than those in the opposition bar the Greens and Sinn Féin. But that’s another story…