A paragon amongst the animals… May 8, 2008
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, Media and Journalism, media.trackback
Who is it who:
has made an extraordinary contribution to the advance of this State in many spheres during his eleven years in high office.
Who…
played a phenomenal role in bringing about peace in Northern Ireland;
and…
presided over the best of the Celtic Tiger years which define Ireland’s position, strategically and economically, in the world today;
But not stopping there, who:
unified his party in the wake of the disastrous and damaging divisions of the 1980s; espoused consensus, not just in successive national wage agreements but on the greater European stage; and, excelled at the art of politics by embracing coalition and…
and?
…making Fianna Fáil indispensible to the formation of government for the forseeable future.
Whose…
achievements, to coin the phrase of the celebrity culture in which he lives, are awesome.
Wait a second. That’s Bertie Ahern they’re talking about… and it’s the Irish Times these words appear in. And not merely the Irish Times, but the Irish Times editorial. And this on foot of a multi-page overview, retrospective and biography of the man in the paper itself.
Such honeyed words, such praise… for consider the following…
Cumulatively, historians will judge whether they exceed those of any other Fianna Fáil leader or Taoiseach in their day. His place in Irish history is guaranteed. His electoral success, the real test of any party leader, comes closest to that of Eamon de Valera.
Of course this being the Irish Times editorial there has to be a bit of grit in the honey, the sort of grit that is impossible to remove without smashing the jar, discarding what is left and forgetting about the toast… for…
It could be argued that his performance exceeds de Valera’s in one important respect because he held office for three terms without ever winning an overall majority for Fianna Fáil.
Ouch!
But after this slight case of leaves on the tracks it’s everyone back on the praise train…
His lasting legacy is the achievement of the Belfast Agreement which led him to claim in his address to the Joint Houses of Congress in the United States last week: “I am so proud, Madam Speaker, to be the first Irish leader to inform the United States Congress: Ireland is at peace”.
His human qualities?
Unlike the eleven Taoisigh to preceed him, Bertie Ahern earned the respect of the people in the manner in which he grasped the opportunities presented to him. His support from the people was hard won by achievement in many different spheres. And, over-riding it all, there was an affection for his affability, his ordinariness, his common touch. He was always a man of the people. He struck a chord with voters: businessmen and Belfast men, trade union activists and members, women and separated families, culchies and North Dublin Dubs.
Then come these…
* * *
Praise over, down to the hard stuff? Well yes and no.
There is no doubt that his historic achievement was the successful negotiation of the Belfast Agreement and the bedding down of the peace process which, on his resignation, has a devolved, multi-party coalition government in operation in Northern Ireland controlled by the extremes of Dr Ian Paisley’s Democratic Unionist Party and Gerry Adams’s Sinn Fein.
See? They’re still not happy about the ‘extremes’ (although go read Jonathan Powells excellent point in this months Prospect which notes that it was John Hume who opened the door to Adams and Sinn Féin in the 1980s, and who refused to countenance any agreement without them - a very different proposition from that implicitly made by the Irish Times and others about the ‘moderates’ being shouldered aside) And then a masterfully ambiguous line…
This development may not have happened without the presence of Mr Ahern.
Indeed.
While other party leaders had the grand vision to dare imagine a possible solution - ….Mr Ahern was the man to deliver on the day. He was the right man in the right place at the right time.
Well, that’s history for you. Them’s the breaks. Still, the text becomes - shall we say - more double-edged in its assessment… consider the following…
He may not have had the vision of his predecessors to construct the framework for peace, but his particular skills came into play in the intense negotiations to follow.
The first part of that sentence is extraordinary. How on earth can we tell? Since he wasn’t Taoiseach in earlier times it’s unknowable.
He achieved the consensus to bring the peace process forward, not just in constitutional, administrative and political terms, but he built up a relationship with the unionists, a trust between Dr Paisely and himself, the likes of which has never been seen before. He has transformed the North/South and the Anglo/Irish relationship.
Some more of these…
* * *
And this time we have praise and criticism…
On the home front, Mr Ahern had hugely significant achivements also. He presided over the best of the Celtic Tiger years when this State witnessed wealth beyond our wildest dreams…But, there are two areas, in retrospect now, where he did not make progress: on the health service and on infrastructual development…
A bit of party politics…
In his years as Taoiseach and leader of Fianna Fáil, Bertie Ahern brought politicis to a fine art. He inherited a deeply divided party after the Haughey years and made it whole again. He crafted coalition governments to suit the electoral mood of the day. He introduced the concept of the five-year term of office. He did the unthinkable by bringing the Green Party into the current coalition arrrangement even when their numbers were not strictly needed. In the process, he has made Fianna Fáil almost indispensible to government-formation.
No dispute there… but a shadow passes in front of the sun…
Yet, any honest attempt to assess the legacy of Bertie Ahern must record that there was another side to the man. He espoused a set of political standards for others that he did not live by himself. He had to resign, in the end, because of his handling of matters before the Mahon Tribunal relating to the controversial payments he received when he was Minister for Finance. He was caught by the culture of a former time. He breached a trust with the people today.
Interesting. Not the issues themselves, but the ‘handling’… very interesting. Still, every cloud has a silver lining…
His departure marks the end of the Haughey era.
And even that is better than bad…
Unlike his mentor, … , Mr Ahern did this State considerable service over many, many years. He lived for politics. And when history comes to be written, Bertie Ahern will be remembered for the political achievments of a lifetime far more than the squalid stories about his monies.
Hmmmm… squalid stories you say? What an interesting, and almost detached phrase. No mention of the small matter that the Irish Times, and in particular its editorial pages has been at the forefront of discussing these issues. Still, perhaps even the IT worries a bit about the heavy and un-nuanced hand of history and after all, why spoil a beautiful early Summers day?
I can’t decide is this completely craven or of a piece with the statements in the Dáil a week or so back, where the great and the good turned their noses up at Caoimhín O’Caoláin for actually having the temerity in a fairly straightforward, and not ungracious, piece to point out some of the garments that the emperor appeared to be lacking (most entertaining was Stephen Collins inevitably sniffy remarks about C O’C in the Irish Times the following weekend, considering Collins approach to this matter over the years). There is something distasteful about the way in which bonhomie asserts itself in these instances. Either the situation is serious enough to require a serious response, or it isn’t. And I’m not talking about the scattergun approach of insulting Ahern personally that appears almost like a therapeutic process for some which has absolutely no purchase on the political realities, but a considered and collected engagement with these issues, warts and all.
Still, the biscuit is well and truly taken in a further piece by Harry McGee which seriously discusses his future prospects as either President of Ireland, or President of the council of Ministers of the EU. Sure…
The major stumbling block is how his ongoing dealings with the Mahon tribunal play to other EU political leaders.
But that these, a potential political life post Tribunal - are potential outcomes tells us a lot about both the process we have seen and the reality of political life. Because the nearly but not quite approach of the Irish Times is both reflection and exemplar of a dynamic whereby we mean it but we don’t really approach to politics and political life in this country. Afraid to strike, afraid to hold back. ‘Sure you’re an awful man…’ but what precisely do they mean? Or is it fingers crossed and let’s leave it to history to judge?
WBS,
I agree that Ahern got a light touch from the Times yesterday. Yet I can see where they are coming from. In a short piece the aim was to capture the essence of Ahern’s legacy. In his 11 years as Taoiseach, and 14 years as leader of FF, Ahern’s achievements are so significant that they force Haughey’s shadow almost out of sight. But not quite, in the end that shadow was his nemesis. (Though of course, further damaging revelations from the Tribunal could still damage Ahern’s reputation further) He was of course wrong to take the monies he did, and his handling of the whole affair showed contempt for the Irish people. His whole attitude to democracy was wrong and his refusal to take the concept of integrity seriously damaged our democracy. He was not the kind of Taoiseach I would choose, and during his tenure great opportunities were missed, especially in reforming public service and using the fruit of the boom to make it work better for Ireland now and in the future.
I think his ability to build consensus allowed far more than the outstanding progress on Northern Ireland. Irish politics were transformed in other ways during his time in office. And doubtless Ahern performed well on the international stage. There is a genuine respect for him as an Irish statesman among senior politicians in Washington, London, and Europe.
The times to be fair, concluded by returning to his failure to keep high standards in office. But Ahern’s determination to stay in power even when ugly stories about his past were surfacing is not something that he can take all the blame for. Though our political culture has improved significantly since its darkest hour during Haughey’s reign, there remains a residual and very dangerous tolerance for the nod and the wink. Sadly this is not limited to the political class - it runs through society in general. Look how the likes of Flynn and Lowry are relected. Not least, look how the Irish people failed to reject Ahern and what he stood for at the last election.
So Ahern did no favours for efforts to make integrity important in Irish politics. But his damage can be overstated. He cannot take all the blame. And he didn’t cause a major crisis in government. It’s a cloud over his legacy. But his tireless efforts and very substantial achievements will always stand.
For me, the Irish Times I think said too little on how the fruit of the Celtic Tiger were both used and distributed. That execpted, I think it was a fair balance.
Isn’t there something of conflict when you suggest in response to this
He may not have had the vision of his predecessors to construct the framework for peace, but his particular skills came into play in the intense negotiations to follow.
CLR - The first part of that sentence is extraordinary. How on earth can we tell? Since he wasn’t Taoiseach in earlier times it’s unknowable.
but then in response to this
Mr Ahern was the man to deliver on the day. He was the right man in the right place at the right time.
CLR - Well, that’s history for you. Them’s the breaks.
After all how do we how Albert or Bruton, or Garrett or even Charlie might have done in those circumstances? as you say yourself “Since he wasn’t Taoiseach in earlier times it’s unknowable” I think Bertie did an excellent job with regard to the north but I don’t think he was the only man that could have done it. Others might have done it differently but I suspect they would have done the job in the end.
I agree with Dan. Yes, others would have done it in the end. The peace process, though fragile in makeup and uneven in progress, was a confluence of events and circumstances. It is too strong to say that given the way these various things aligned it was inevitable. But it certainly gathered a momentum of its own as all players, British and Irish establishmets, Unionist and Republican leaderships, slowly shifted position and reduced barriers to progress.
Still though, even if others could have done it, Ahern’s personality, professionalism, and skills, together with his indifference to ideology, made him more likely to succeed in this generation than most of his contemporaries who might plausibly have found themselves in his shoes.
The process was not linear and often lurched backwards. At every step it required delicate and sensitive hands in order to prevent it from slipping back into a cycle that might reasonably have lasted another generation.
Those of us who have no time for Aherns politics and his stewardship of the country in so many other ways, should not let this prevent us from acknowledging one of the big jobs that he got right. Making peace is perhaps the most significant contribution any statesman can make to the fate of his country. In Ahern’s case, given the circumstances he inherited and the task that was before him, he delivered.
The other aspect of Bertie’s time in office as Taoiseach is that he has changed the public perception of the position from that of leader to that of manager. I genuinely find it hard to think of some issue or position that Bertie lead us as a nation towards or from.
I suspect though it is just an initial reading that Cowen may be more inclined to take a view on something seeking to mark out a course of action and then try and convince us of its rightness. I could be wrong but that’s my reading of the man.
Haughey’s insistence on a Unitary state solution together with Fianna Fail’s attitude when in opposition - bring down the government by whatever means would have meant that a non FF taoiseac would be harried at every step (remember John Unionist Bruton).
Ahearn’s ‘achievement’ must surely have been selling a less than Unitary state solution to Fianna Fail.
What a load of shite. I would love to know how Bertie Ahern, Paisley, Blair en al brought ‘peace’ to the North. The process was well underway before these shitebags decided to join in. Get real the North was not a war between the apparatus of states against one another it was a social malaise within the North’s working class communities which saw ‘politicians’ only to willing when it suited them to jump on the bandwagon of the paramilitary subculture to russle up support and sooth there egos. Such malaise have a generational aspect to them, IMO the subculture was on the wane pre 1982 and yes the rat Haughey plied his part in keeping it going as did Thatcher, both only to willing to use pseudo patriotism to shore up their own political projects. Which in Haughey’s case was little more that a Napoleon complex and riding that waste of skin thing Keane. Now Ahern, the little scheming fixer didn’t play the Green card in 1998, and fair play to him. But why didn’t he? It probably had more to do with his financial connections to the Brits than any big love of peace – and why is he getting such praise for just doing the right thing? So he was around when the troubles finally ran out of steam, he claims his work saved lives. If that is the way we’re going to play it, then his carven policy of destroying our already fucked health service, how many lives have you cost Ahern? As for Paisley a big bag of wind who can not even claim now to have believed the shite he spluttered for the last 50 years. The Irish Times, well its home to craven creeps like Steve Collins so what can we really hope. It got a lot of credit for just doing what any paper should have done in initially reporting that the serving Taoiseach had been in the pay of as yet unidentified Brits.
That’s a fair point Dan, I’m not attempting to dismiss other Taoisigh, just suggest the IT is being a bit over the top. I would agree with Tomaltach that he did get one big thing right. I guess what I’m trying to get at is that there doesn’t appear to be in our political vocabulary a means to deal with instances such as this, or even any great appetite, to the extent that whatever about the Tribunals he may well indeed head off the Europe or the Park.
Joe, that’s an excellent point.
Pete, there’s something in what you say, but, at the same time the conflict did continue (and in some respects still does) well into the 1990s, the mid- to late 1990s. Granted, and as I say I accept that there was a process in train, those involved finally saw off the worst of it. But, consider other intractable conflicts of a similar nature which haven’t been moderated… it wasn’t absolutely inevitable that violence would end. One merely need look at the Basque situation to see that a small core can keep it going in the face of general public antagonism within the community they see themselves as representing.
Joe,
When you say less-than-unitary state, you mean acceptance of the notion of consensus, which for the Irish State meant removal of articles 2 and 3. If it was Ahern who finally persuaded FF, and the nation, to surrender 2 and 3, it was Reynolds who put them on the table in the first place. The Downing Street Declaration, agreed between John Major and Albert Reynolds in 1993, did a number of things - but essentially it defined a version of self-determination for Northern Ireland. This would be facilitated by the Irish Republic removing its territorial claims in the event of an agreement. As far as I recall the text of the agreement does not explicitly mention 2 and 3, but the thrust of its provisions in respect of the Republic amount to removing these articles from the constitution, a proposal which became more explicit in the months after the declaration. The DSD was seen as a major step in how the two government viewed a possible resolution of the conflict. It was one of the ‘big’ steps along the way. One of the ‘big’ ideas. As far as I’m aware Bertie Ahern didn’t contribute any novel idea to the thinking on the peace process. It was, as we have discussed above, his sustained input and ultimate success in drawing people towards the common ground which mark his contribution to making the peace.
I should have added, in highlighting the significance of the DSD, that the first IRA ceasefire of the 90s happened 8 months later.
That’s very true Tomaltach, and following on from your points, and to pick up on what Joe said, it doesn’t strike me that there was very much selling to do to FF in its broad membership, etc. Once Republicans were accepted in principle into the process in the North a lot of the fire went out of that debate (interestingly I remember talking to a person close to the thinking of leading DL people in the mid 1990s who thought the McKenna judgement had been pushed forward by her (McKenna) specifically to stymie an Articles 2 and 3 referendum in the future which perhaps tells us something of the thinking of those on either side of that debate whether an accurate analysis or not).