A chara, - Paul Cullen (Opinion & Analysis, April 9th) says the presumption of innocence was trampled on in the rush to pass judgment on the Taoiseach.
"At no time," he writes, "has Ahern been charged with any offence before the courts, let alone convicted. Neither has he been the subject of any adverse finding by the tribunal, or any other State inquiry. Nothing he has done has been linked to any corrupt act or payment."
This is true; but when a Taoiseach openly confesses to receiving large quantities of money from private individuals while serving as minister for finance, this is in itself grounds for immediate resignation, irrespective of whether favours were returned. The integrity of the office of Taoiseach was compromised, regardless of whether or not there is a conviction or adverse finding by the tribunal.
Similarly, Mr Cullen says the "smoke without fire brigade" judged Mr Ahern to be guilty; for them "the mere fact that he has been hauled up to Dublin Castle [ is] evidence enough of his wrongdoing". But it was not the cosmetics of Mr Ahern's visits to the tribunal that sealed his fate, but the content of his responses there.
While investigating an allegation of corruption against the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern was questioned about the vast quantities of money moving in and out of his bank accounts in the past. Even though Mr Ahern had trained as an accountant and was the minister for finance, he could not adequately or accurately account for these transactions in their entirety. In light of this, is it not legitimate to raise concerns about his continuing stewardship of the Government pending a full and thorough investigation of these allegations?
Mr Cullen believes that the "unseemly ousting of the Taoiseach raises the bar for political rectitude in this country to new heights". Is there something inherently wrong with demanding the most exacting standards from the leadership of any democratic government? Nobody suggests that everybody is perfect, but power brings responsibility. You cannot as a cabinet member accept money from private individuals. This is not an excessive demand, but a fundamental principle regarding the political integrity of democratic office.
Finally, Mr Cullen repeats the disingenuous argument that the public knew the allegations surrounding Mr Ahern before the last general election, empathised with his plight at that time, yet still voted him into office. This disregards the fact that the public had only partial information regarding Mr Ahern's unorthodox financial affairs at that time, and therefore gave him the benefit of the doubt.
The media - and in particular The Irish Times- did not hound Mr Ahern out of office. They just reported and analysed the facts as expected of them. Throughout this affair, the media did their job. But the constant undermining of the tribunal by Cabinet members and their silence in the face of unmistakable evidence of wrongdoing, coupled with the Opposition's cowardice for so long in challenging the emerging facts, suggests that neither did their job adequately. As regards Mr Ahern, he has but himself to blame. - Is mise,
ERIC CREAN, Shandon Gardens, Dublin 7.
Madam, - Viewing the "retirement" of Bertie Ahern from afar, I question of the value of tribunals to the Irish people. Mr Ahern admits he made mistakes but insists he never took a bribe. To me, whether he did or not is immaterial. He was a good leader of the Irish Government during a period of great economic growth and played an important part in brokering peace in Northern Ireland.
Politics are and always have been - right back to ancient Roman and Greek times - a profession where bribery, influence and power-brokering are implicit. The Irish people know that, the Romans and Greeks knew that and tribunals are not likely to give us any more worthwhile information. The sooner we realise that - thus saving many millions of euro, many lawyers' "valuable" time and countless column inches of newsprint - the better. - Yours, etc,
JOHN GILMORE LUSH, Auckland, New Zealand.