Haughey was the victim not theinstigator of power struggles
Eamon de Valera was unchallenged in leading Fianna Fáil from 1926 until 1959. When he stood down, he handed over the party leadership to Seán Lemass without any contest.
Lemass did such a wonderful job that some historians have been regretting that de Valera did not step down in 1948. It would undoubtedly have enhanced his place in history, but not the place of Lemass. Seán MacEntee — who would probably have been a disaster — would likely have replaced Dev in 1948.
When Lemass retired in 1966, the media depicted the struggle to succeed him as a contest between Haughey and George Colley but, in the tradition of the party, Lemass was clearly backing Jack Lynch.
He had appointed Jack to succeed him in the industry and commerce portfolio in 1959, and he had given him the prestigious post of finance minister in a 1965 reshuffle.
As was his wont, Lynch usually played the role of the reluctant politician. He refused to stand in a 1946 by-election and made them twist his arm before standing in the 1948 general election. He played reluctant to accept the posts of both education minister and later as industry and commerce minister, and he had to be persuaded by Lemass before he would run for Taoiseach.
Back in January 1921, de Valera proclaimed that he wished to return to private life. He pretended he was only serving out of a sense of duty, but if you believe that, you would probably also believe the Pope was the tooth fairy.
This was an era when politicians pretended they were reluctant leaders. Charlie Haughey was a different breed in that he never hid his ambition to be Taoiseach. He will not be remembered for his overall honesty, but he was open and honest about his ambitions.
His critics said his ambitions poisoned relations within Fianna Fáil, but it was opponents who started it.
When Lemass asked Haughey to stand aside in 1966, he did so without question. He undoubtedly realised that his time had not yet come. George Colley, on the other hand, fancied himself so much that he did run against Jack Lynch, and failed dismally. But, of course, George had no personal ambition!
At that meeting at which Lynch was elected leader of Fianna Fáil, Seán MacEntee savaged Lemass for supposedly squandering the party’s great heritage. “Sometimes in recent years, it seemed as if it were being dealt with like a personal possession,” he said. The State was “tottering towards anarchy” and what Lemass was doing was tantamount to “deserting in the face of the enemy”. In spite of all this,MacEntee insisted Lemass should stay in office two more years: “Is he so weary, so unnerved, that he balks at the task which he will leave to his successor?”
Members sat in stunned silence.MacEntee could hardly have chosen a more inappropriate moment for such attack. After 40 years on the front line of Fianna Fáil, Lemass had every right to retire without having his patriotism questioned. MacEntee’s contribution was as absurd as it was outrageous. He accused the Taoiseach of leading the country towards anarchy while arguing that he should stay on for two more years.
MacEntee hailed the quasi-fascist dictators Francisco Franco of Spain and Antonio Salazar of Portugal as the prototypes of proper leadership. Both of them had shown consistent contempt for democracy.
Despite all his failings, Charles Haughey left a legacy with some positive contributions. What legacy did MacEntee leave after his Dáil tenure, which extended from 1919-1969? He served two periods as finance minister — one worse than the other. From 1932-1939 was the period of the Great Depression, for which he could not be blamed, but 1951-1954 was boom period in Europe, yet under his deflationary financial leadership, this country went through another depression. It ranks as probably the most miserable period in the State’s history.
LARGE elements of the media swallowed MacEntee’s vitriolic bile. His daughter and son-in-law, Conor Cruise O’Brien, exhibited the same kind of lousy timing when they went on air arguing, as Haughey was dying, that he should not have a State funeral.
In a perverse way, it was fitting that the Cruiser would be sniping to the end, because he based so much of his political career on personalised attacks on Haughey. During his first election campaign in 1969, the Cruiser led a campaign denouncing the sale of Haughey’s home in Raheny. Such tactics may have worked in 1969 and 1973 but they blew up in his face in 1977, when he concentrated the Labour Party’s attacks on Haughey.
Fianna Fáil won the largest majority in history that year, Haughey was re-elected with a massive majority, and the Cruiser lost his seat and went off wandering in the political wilderness, ending up as a transient UKUP (a member of the UK Unionist Party).
George Colley was the first person to challenge the process of natural succession within Fianna Fáil. That was his right, but the media never seemed to question his ambition. What had he done that prompted his belief he should be Taoiseach? Indeed, would somebody please tell us what political good he ever did? By playing the part of the reluctant Taoiseach, Lynch left himself wide open to challenges. Colley challenged him in 1966, and Neil Blaney made a blatant challenge at the Fianna Fáil árd fheis of 1970 but withdrew when Jack took him on. Haughey made a similarly brief challenge after the Arms Trial, but quickly jumped back into his box when it became apparent the parliamentary party was overwhelmingly behind Lynch.
Haughey never hid his ambition to succeed Lynch, but he did not again dare to try to push him. In 1979 it was Colley’s supporters who asked Lynch to go early so they could catch Haughey on the hop, but they had lost touch with the party’s backbenches. Haughey won the leadership fair and square, but they could never forgive him for their own incompetence.
Des O’Malley tried to oust Haughey in February 1982, but made a total botch of it. Charlie McCreevy tried unsuccessfully that October and there was further effort in February1983. During the third challenge a whole gaggle tested the water as they lined up to run to succeed him.
Some elements of the media got it badly wrong each time. They predicted Colley would beat Haughey, and that O’Malley would oust him. In early 1983 the bookies did not even bother to consider the possibility Haughey would win. They took bets on who would succeed him, and then they had to wait until 1992 to learn who the actual successor was.
Albert Reynolds tried unsuccessfully to oust Haughey in November 1991, but he had his way the following February, with the help of Des O’Malley and the Progressive Democrats, when they threatened to bring down the government.
Isn’t it ironic that the media would have us believe that Haughey was the one who started the heaves in Fianna Fáil? It wasn’t; he was the principal victim. And it looks like FF will be at it again. Now the PDs are at it, too.
Now the PDs are at it. But, sure, they were conceived as a result of the heaves!
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
