Pretence of restraint gives way to untrammelled judgment

THE Romans put it well, Michael McDowell told the Dáil, in the wake of Charles Haughey’s death on Tuesday. “De mortuis nil nisi bonum,” he said, “which means, ‘speak only good of those who lie dead’.”

There would be “plenty of time, hereafter, for passionate and dispassionate assessments” of Mr Haughey’s legacy, he added.

Political leaders on both sides of the House voiced their agreement with that sentiment. Yet, not all managed to observe it. There was a pretence of restraint, perhaps, but that was all.

History is written by the winners, they say, and the battle to shape history’s perception of Mr Haughey was already well under way before his death.

The Taoiseach, the man who considered Mr Haughey his mentor, was later forced to condemn him when the tribunals gradually revealed the murky sources of Mr Haughey’s wealth.

In May 2000, Bertie Ahern declared the revelations from the Moriarty Tribunal about Mr Haughey’s finances “deeply shocking”, adding: “What has emerged from all of this is a deviation from the standards and ethos of Fianna Fáil, not just during the period of the founders of the party but at all times in our history.”

Six years on, the Taoiseach — who in recent times led the charge to restore Mr Haughey’s tarnished image — seemed to have completely forgotten those comments.

In his Dáil speech on Tuesday, Mr Ahern recalled how Mr Haughey had been his political benefactor, first appointing him government chief whip and subsequently handing him ministerial posts.

“I was proud to have served with him and prouder still to call him a friend,” he said.

Mr Ahern acknowledged that the tribunal revelations had “clouded” Mr Haughey’s achievements, but said he expected history’s judgment of him would be positive.

Mr Rabbitte acknowledged the late Taoiseach’s contribution but stressed there was “a darker side” to his legacy.

Initially, it appeared as if Mr Rabbitte would leave it at that, but he was only warming up, and what followed deeply irritated some within Fianna Fáil.

Mr Haughey was involved in the genesis of the peace process, Mr Rabbitte said, but “history should also record that he was involved in the genesis of the horror that was inflicted on us over 30 years”, referring to the arms trial episode.

His “mistaken” economic policies in the early 1980s made “a significant contribution to the difficulties” encountered during that decade. And then there was the question of probity.

“All of us in the House would like to be able to say he applied his talents exclusively to public service,” Mr Rabbitte said, “but we must ask to what extent his behaviour as a senior politician has contributed to the lowering of the public esteem in which politics are held.”

Sinn Féin’s leader in the Dáil, Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, was also critical. Despite Mr Haughey’s green credentials, Mr Ó Caoláin’s party had a poor view of him, for his perceived failure “to stand up” to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during the 1981 hunger strikes.

However, some leaders, such as Fine Gael’s Enda Kenny and the Green Party’s Trevor Sargent, did hold their fire; the former, for instance, opting for an eloquent tribute to “Mr Haughey the man”.

However, it was the judgment of the PDs, the party which owed its existence to a hatred of all things Haughey, which was most keenly awaited by several observers.

Ms Harney, issued a written statement in her absence, and unlike the direct words of Mr Ahern and Mr Rabbitte, it required some reading between the lines.

With no mention of the more controversial aspects of his career, it seems safe to say that Ms Harney was keeping her real thoughts on Mr Haughey very much to herself — for now, at least.

Voice of the people

Russell Browne, 25, Artane, Dublin: ‘He did a lot of good things in the ‘80s. He was a bit shady though. It will definitely be an older generation who will remember him and who will be out there tomorrow [at the Church paying their respects].’

Jill Kiernan, 17, Mullingar, Co Westmeath: ‘He was a great man. My parents are always talking about him. He was a good man for the country and he got the IFSC up and running and other things like that.’

Kieran Reilly, 26, Belmullet, Co Mayo: ‘I don’t think he was too bad myself. I knew of him when I was younger and then during all the tribunals.

‘Older people like him but the younger generation doesn’t care about politics in general, not just Haughey.’

Paula Greally, 20, Loughrea, Co Galway: ‘I think young people would be a bit nonplussed about him but my parents would have seen him in power, but they wouldn’t have too many good things to say about him either.

‘I think the view of him is very tarnished.’

Finola Savage, Castletownsend, Co Cork, 20s: ‘I suppose at home it would have been a Charlie Haughey house so there would have been a lot of sympathy for him, especially when he died.

‘He will probably be remembered for all the money he spent.’

Evelyn Tobin, Cork, 20s: ‘I don’t know too much about his time as Taoiseach but I do remember a lot of what he was famous for in the last few years.

‘I think that people will think about the good things but probably a lot will be about what he did with the money.’

Brian O’Connor, 21, Limerick: ’He was before my time and I first heard of him when he was before the court some years ago.

‘I have found out a lot about him over the past day or so ... I would have no problem voting for a person like him.’

Derek Daly, 27, Limerick: ‘I knew of Charlie Haughey and know more about the bad than the good.

‘I would not vote for him as he was not people-friendly. He only looked after himself.’