Analysis: The change of leadership could seriously destabilise the party and Government, writes Mark Brennock, Chief Political Correspondent
The Progressive Democrats dread leadership contests. The only one they have had before, between Mary Harney and Pat Cox, left the party badly split, led to Pat Cox's resignation from the party and his subsequent European election triumph over the party's founder, totem and former leader. It took years for those bitter divisions to heal.
Last night, genuinely surprised and shocked at Mary Harney's decision to quit, a significant number of party figures were urging colleagues to avoid a contest and agree on a new leader.
And if that happens, Michael McDowell will be the next PD leader. For while he hasn't formally declared he will run, his burning desire to be party leader is unquenchable and known to all. If there is to be only one candidate, it will be him.
But just as he polarises public opinion, he polarises the party too. Within the parliamentary party and the membership are people who dislike him with a passion and believe his demeanour, which displays certainty - which some call arrogance - about every issue will damage the party.
But while many hold this view, he is also hugely admired and even idolised within the PDs. His certainty/arrogance gives the PDs definition, and for a small party never far from electoral disaster, having a clear sharp image is vital.
Last night any hopes the "stop Michael" tendency has of success were centred on Liz O'Donnell. Tom Parlon said he would consider the matter over the next 24 hours, but said his favoured option was that the parliamentary party would unite behind one candidate, thus avoiding an election. Several parliamentary party members said they suspected he would not run. Ms O'Donnell would not say whether she was considering running. Several colleagues have urged her to do so. She has three days to decide.
Party figures were last night assessing once more the strength of the various possible runners among the three components of the "electoral college" which will elect the next leader if there is a contest. The 13-member parliamentary party has 40 per cent of the vote and would seem to be tilted more towards Michael McDowell than Liz O'Donnell. Last June when McDowell's ambitions exploded into public view, several party figures were taken aback by the level of support there appeared to be for him.
Party members have 30 per cent of the vote, and the membership has for years been seen to be very solidly behind McDowell. The events of early summer including the fiasco over the child sex abuse law and the leadership row damaged McDowell's image, but it is not clear that this could turn the membership against him.
Finally, the party's elected officers together with its local authority members control 30 per cent of the vote. Again, this was seen as solid McDowell territory in the past, and the question is whether last June's events damaged him in this group.
The early demeanour of the "stop Michael" tendency last night was that of people who might have to resign themselves to a McDowell leadership. However, should O'Donnell run, some believed that while McDowell might well be ahead now, O'Donnell could win. McDowell suffered serious political damage in early summer, they argue. The media would remind people of this throughout the campaign.
O'Donnell comes across very well in the media - the public warm to her while they divide over McDowell. As this becomes clear to TDs and Senators, councillors, elected officers and ordinary members during a campaign, opinion could swing behind O'Donnell. Above all, parliamentary party members will choose the leader they think will give them the best chance of retaining their seats in nine months' time. There are arguments for each on this score.
The contest could also prove destabilising for the PDs, and the change of leadership could be destabilising for the Government itself. One senior figure in the party pointed to an immediate difficulty should anyone other than McDowell be elected. He noted Mary Harney's comment that the next party leader would have to be a cabinet minister. So if anyone other than McDowell is elected, either Mary Harney or McDowell will have to be fired from Cabinet.
The prospect of this happening to Harney will appal the party. Should it happen to McDowell, there is the serious possibility that he would quit politics altogether once more.
Such a destabilisation of the PDs would also destabilise the Government. Bertie Ahern remarked last night that he had an agreement with Mary Harney that the PDs would serve a full term. He said he expected to receive the same commitment from the new PD leader. Between the lines he appeared to be suggesting that if a new leader wanted to make a name for him or herself and boost the party by pulling out of Government on some issue of principle, Fianna Fáil had other options that would allow them stay in Government. "One way or another, I will lead a government into the next general election," Mr Ahern said.
Within Fianna Fáil itself, there is a major McDowell factor and there is considerable unease at the prospect of his election as party leader and Tánaiste. Many backbenchers despise him and think his public image damages the Government and therefore Fianna Fáil. They were mollified when he was damaged during the debacle over the legislation on child sex abuse, after Fianna Fáil Ministers were seen to step in and take control. His arrival as Tánaiste would drive many into a rage again.
But that will not be the primary concern of the PD electorate should they be asked to vote for a new leader. The party always walks the thin line between electoral triumph and disaster, and has nine months in which to safeguard its seats.
As of last night, tentative initial opinion in the party was that Michael McDowell looked like the favourite to lead the party into the next election.
Only Liz O'Donnell was seen as having a prospect of seriously challenging him, and only if she could mount a most energetic and persuasive campaign.