Why is political corruption seen solely in terms of the personal morality of particular politicians or parties? asks Vincent Browne
Why isn't corruption seen in terms of the arrogation of society's wealth and power by an elite, such arrogation supported by the legal, political and cultural establishment, whatever the consequences of such arrogation to the welfare of hundreds of thousands of citizens?
I write this in the wake of the commentary on Charles Haughey in the week since his death. Wasn't his acceptance of handouts from wealthy individuals, however improper (and in case of confusion, let me state unambiguously, I think it was indeed improper) essentially a trivial matter as compared with the injustices in the society he helped to shape while he was in politics?
At the risk of trying beyond endurance the patience of those readers who read this column and perhaps other contributions I made to public debate, it seems to me that the seminal report, Inequalities in Mortality, published in 2001 by the Institute of Public Health, reveals a deeply corrupt society. And that other report I have been citing also ad nauseam, the SAVI report, Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland, reveals a deeply abusive and violent Ireland, also deeply corrupt.
Charles Haughey had a part to play in the society that caused or tolerated such deep inequalities as revealed in the first of these reports. He had a part to play in society's indifference to the appalling abuse and violence disclosed in the second of these reports.
But, by God, he was and is not alone. For the entire political, business, social and cultural establishments have conspired to create these injustices and conspired to ignore the abuse and violence.
Just a quick summary of the findings of these reports: In both North and South Ireland the "all causes mortality" rate in the lowest occupational class was 100 per cent to 200 per cent higher than the rate in the highest occupational class.
For circulatory diseases it was over 120 per cent higher. For cancers it was over 100 per cent higher. For respiratory diseases it was over 200 per cent higher.
But when one looks at the details of that Inequalities in Mortalities report it is even worse. For instance, in the cases of diseases of the genito-urinary system the mortality rate was over 360 per cent higher in the lowest occupational class than the rate in the highest occupational class, that is nearly five times higher. The incidence of suicide in the lowest occupational class is over 170 per cent higher than in the case of the highest occupational class, that is nearly three times higher.
The reasons for these huge disparities are not just to do with the healthcare system. It has to do with education, housing, general welfare, income, wealth, influence and power. The statistics reveal a deeply unequal society, a deeply unfair society. But the fact that poor people die of all the major diseases at a rate two, three, five and in a few cases 10 times the rate that rich people die is regarded as irrelevant. Does this say nothing of significance about the kind of society we have? Or perhaps this is the way it is and we all know there is nothing we can do about it.
Isn't politics supposed to be about doing something about such outrageous injustices?
Charlie Haughey, I think, instinctively, wanted to alleviate the destitution of the poor and so did Garret FitzGerald and Seán Lemass and others. But none of them saw that such outrageous inequalities and injustices, such manifestations of real corruption were the necessary outgrowths of the kind of society they favoured and helped to create.
On the SAVI report, this discloses that about 120,000 women have been raped in childhood and about 54,000 men. It also discloses there is no reason to suppose that the incidence of this gross abuse is not continuing at an alarming rate. It reveals that one in five women reported experiencing contact sexual assault as adults and a quarter of these (6.1 per cent of all women) reported being raped as adults. Three per cent of men reported being raped as adults.
There are occasional outbursts of alarm over child abuse and of rape generally. But there is no sense of general crisis over the scale of child and adult abuse. As a society, we don't want to know. Isn't there something deeply corrupt about such a society?
How is it that the torrent of indignation that has been spewed over the memory of Charlie Haughey's alleged personal corruption is entirely absent when confronted with the illustrations of real corruption?
I assume these remarks will be seen by the hysterics who think Charlie Haughey brought Ireland to the verge of dictatorship as a smokescreen, an attempt to divert attention for the perfidies of this fons et origo of all evil in contemporary society. Let that be.
This indeed is a deeply corrupt society and Charlie Haughey had a part to play in bringing that about or at least tolerating it. But no more a part than those who shriek evil while doing evil.