On the letters page last Wednesday Patricia Moynihan appeared to suggest that in last Saturday's column I sought to excuse or minimise the guilt of politicians who take bribes from developers and landowners. That is a distortion of what I wrote. The guilt of politicians who take bribes is at least as great as that of those who bribe them, for the politicians are betraying the trust of those who voted for them and thus are betraying democracy itself.
Rare, however, are Irish politicians who enter politics with the intention of securing illicit gains. To think otherwise is to misunderstand the nature of political corruption, and if we are to defeat corruption we need to understand how it operates. It does so not by inserting corrupt people into the system but by corrupting weak people already in the system.
However, corruption is difficult to prove in court as long as politicians remain legally entitled to receive monetary payments from people who have an interest in the decisions that they make. For in these circumstances it may not be enough to prove that a politician voted for a project and also received a payment from the promoters of the project. In order to make a criminal charge stick a link of motivation may have to be proved. Thus, in order to prevent corruption the whole process of contributions to individual politicians, and also to political parties, has to be tackled at the source. That was the main thrust of what I wrote in this column last week.
At the time I was elected leader of the Fine Gael Oireachtas Party in July 1977 I received from my predecessor, Liam Cosgrave, one piece of advice, and one only. If, he said to me, the magnitude or the timing of a contribution to the party was such as to raise any doubt whatever about the purpose of the donor I was to return it at once, before even giving a temporary receipt.
On one subsequent occasion a donation - given to several parties by mining interests during a by-election - was received locally by Fine Gael, and a temporary receipt was in fact given at local level before I heard of it. I ordered the immediate return of the donation.
In those days and for some years thereafter personal contributions to politicians at election times did not constitute a problem. Personal friends might offer small sums to individuals to help cover out-of-pocket expenses during a campaign; anything else went into the local or national party fund.
Indeed the problem as far as personal contributions were concerned was the opposite one. In 1973 it had been drawn to my attention that in at least one constituency Fine Gael candidates had been asked as a condition of their nomination to contribute to the cost of the election - which had led to a working-class candidate having to withdraw from the ticket. As leader of the party I made it clear that this must never be allowed to happen again.
The problem we now face is, of course, a very different one. It is the impact of a growing culture of individualism upon the multi-seat electoral system. As a result of this new factor, personal campaigns by candidates - always forbidden in the past although not always completely prevented - seem to have become accepted, or at least tolerated, by the parties.
This relaxation of the discipline required in a multi-seat electoral system seems to have led to the emergence of individual funding of candidates on a significant scale. In at least one party this, in turn, has led to some individuals receiving personal donations in excess of any likely level of personal electoral spending - thus opening a possibility of some politicians turning their election campaigns into profitable ventures.
Now, even if none of these personal contributions came from a tainted source, such a development is clearly objectionable, and it must be stopped by means of legislative action covering the whole range of personal as well as party contributions.
We must face the fact that where such personal contributions are made by or on behalf of an individual or group with an interest in political decisions for which the candidate has voted, (or has otherwise influenced, or might in future vote for or influence), this is bound to raise a suspicion of bribery - even if in a criminal prosecution proof could not be provided of a link of motivation between these two events.
There will no doubt be those who will argue that where bribery cannot be proved in terms of the criminal law - i.e. beyond reasonable doubt - and where a party has not had the foresight to ban the acceptance of a financial payment of this kind by elected members, it would be unjust for the party to suspend or expel such a person. In my view this argument is unsustainable.
FOR political parties simply cannot afford to have among their members elected representatives who act in such an irresponsible and imprudent way. If an elected member is incapable of realising how the acceptance of such a contribution will be viewed by the public, or is foolish enough to believe that such a contribution would never come to light, then, even in the absence of evidence of motivation that might be required for a criminal conviction, such an elected member has forfeited the right to represent, and therefore must be excluded from, any political party that is concerned about its reputation.
It is patently obvious that in present circumstances any party which allows considerations of personal loyalty or sympathy with a member who it may believe to have acted imprudently rather than criminally, to stand in the way of clearing the party's reputation, will be seriously damaged. I am sure that in both the main parties there are clearsighted people who understand this, and who will wish their parties to act accordingly.
As for party funding, now that the Progressive Democrats have belatedly dropped their opposition to the replacement of business funding of parties and elections by State funding, the way is clear for a long overdue reform of this aspect of our politics. This reform must, of course, include control of electoral spending.
And if private contributions to parties up to a certain limit, as distinct from business contributions, continue to be permitted, all of these contributions will need to be returned to an appropriate public authority for vetting in order to ensure that multiple payments of small amounts are not being made with a view to evading any contribution limit that may have been set.
A failure to take this opportunity to clean up our political system once and for all could be disastrous for Irish politics. It is up to all our parties to join together now in carrying this process through to a successful conclusion. I believe there are enough honest and dedicated politicians in all our parties to ensure that this will happen.
gfitzgerald@irish-times.ie