:quality(70)/s3.amazonaws.com/arc-authors/irishtimes/350bb934-9825-439e-8524-ff8d372de019.png)
Bertie Ahern apparently believes there is a constitutional right to buy the political system. And it is probable that he has been persuaded to this view by his new pal, the Attorney General, Michael McDowell.
It seems it is not only Bertie Ahern and Michael McDowell who believe this. John Bruton and Ruairi Quinn also believe it, although in a modified form. Bertie Ahern and Michael McDowell believe that corporations and private individuals have a right to buy the political system. John Bruton and Ruairi Quinn believe only private individuals have a right to buy the political system.
They all believe, apparently, that there is a qualitative difference between the bribery that the tribunals are excavating and the bribery represented by the private funding of political parties.
Why do Bertie Ahern, Michael McDowell, John Bruton and Ruairi Quinn think there is something wrong about Charles Haughey getting £8.5 million from his political cronies during his political lifetime? What is so bad about Dublin county councillors getting money in brown paper bags or otherwise? What if the export credit insurance scheme was misused or the designated areas scheme or any other scheme?
The only reason bribery matters is that it results in unfairness - unfairness to those outside the loop whose interests are improperly disregarded in favour of the bribers.
The moral sensibilities of some might be offended by the hypocrisy of politicians claiming to act in the public interest when, in reality, they were acting in their own interest. But why should we get too excited by that? We are all pretty good at hypocrisy, thinking that our case and our interests are special and need not accord with what we profess are the proper norms of public and social behaviour.
The unfairness that arises from bribery arises also and in precisely the same way from a practice that amounts to the same thing and which we call legitimate - the private funding of the political system.
At the Flood tribunal over the past few weeks there has been laughter from the public gallery as George Redmond has claimed again and again that the considerable sums of money he got from various donors over the years did not influence decisions he took concerning their interests. But why is it so unbelievable that George Redmond was not influenced by these donations when, apparently, it is entirely believable that political parties are uninfluenced by donations that they receive?
Why should we believe two politicians about whom the suspicion of corruption has never risen and very properly so - John Bruton and Alan Dukes - when they claim the huge sums of money they got from Ben Dunne never influenced their decisions, when we laugh at George Redmond for claiming the same thing? Just think of the derision that would greet a protestation by Charles Haughey that the millions he got from Ben Dunne did not influence him.
John Bruton and Alan Dukes may well respond that they did not get any money personally, they sought and got money for their political party. But does that matter? They desperately wanted the money for their party. Since at the time they got the money from Ben Dunne they were leader of their party and there can be no neat separation of the interests of the party leader and the interests of the party. If, for instance, Alan Dukes got enough money for Fine Gael in 1989 and 1990 he might never have been ousted from the leadership, or not in 1990 anyway.
The McCracken tribunal report stated: "It is quite unacceptable that a member of Dail Eireann, and in particular a Cabinet Minister and Taoiseach, should be supported in his personal lifestyle by gifts made to him personally. It is particularly unacceptable that such gifts should emanate from prominent businessmen within the State. The possibility that political or financial favours could be sought in return for such gifts, or even be given without being sought, is very high and if such gifts were permissible, they would inevitably lead in some cases to bribery and corruptions."
Why is it unacceptable that a Taoiseach accept lavish gifts from prominent businessmen and not unacceptable for political parties to receive lavish gifts from prominent businessmen? That McCracken report went on to say that it was "not practical" for political parties to rely solely on public funding and that there might be "constitutional difficulties" if they did. But what is impractical about it and what constitutional difficulties arise? How could there be a constitutional right to subvert the principle of one person, one vote?
That principle of equality is subverted by allowing one group of people (in this case the rich) to buy more influence in a democracy than another group (the poor). And these rich people are permitted to buy influence in two ways. First, simply by biasing the minds of public representatives in their favour (whether this is done on a direct quid pro quo basis or not is essentially irrelevant). Second, by putting the party that represents their interests in a preferred position.
Even if every fragment of the political skulduggery of the last 30 years is unearthed by the excavations of the tribunals, it will all be for nothing unless that fundamental unfairness is removed from our political system. And the indications are that the political establishment is digging in again to ensure that fundamental unfairness remains.