There were many over the years who said Charlie Haughey would ultimately destroy the party he dominated, led and shaped for almost two decades. Then, when he left in 1992 and we found ourselves in the postHaughey era, that danger seemed over.
But now the spectre of Charlie Haughey is back with a vengeance, turning to ashes the electoral success of Bertie Ahern and Mary Harney and ensuring that there will be no painless, seamless transfer from one era to another, no handy application of the air-brush to remove uncomfortable realities or eliminate haunting memories.
The truth of this can be seen on the worried, harried faces of Ministers around the House this week. They were lucky they did not have to face a daily grilling on the floor of the House from John Bruton and Dick Spring (Proinsias De Rossa is busy elsewhere) and the only thing they have going for them is the summer recess. Has anybody seen Mary Harney smile since she became Tanaiste? No. And they won't for some time.
Haughey's tribunal performance was without a redeeming feature. It was brazen, cynical and, in its disingenuousness, confirmed what most people felt they knew already. Drapier is not going to parse or analyse that performance. It has been, and is being, done elsewhere. His concern is more immediate. How does it affect him and his fellow politicians? And what to do about it?
The first thing we have to do is be truthful with ourselves. What we are witnessing, and what we will see, are events on a cataclysmic scale. Mary Harney did herself no justice this week when she tried to lump the Haughey and Lowry affairs together as being roughly on a par. They are not. Both are bad, but the differences in scale, duration and depth are profound. So let's stop scoring points. This is the greatest political scandal in our history.
The truth is that many people in Irish politics knew for a very long time that there was something rotten at the core of Haugheyism. George Colley knew, and with each passing day his reputation grows. Paul McKay, Haughey's constituency treasurer, had a good inkling of the style and substance of party financing and paid the price. Dessie O'Malley showed bravery, guts and integrity and was reviled for his pains. Mary Harney likewise. And there were others in Fianna Fail who did not bow the knee.
There were others again - and some are in the present Cabinet - who threw shapes, but stayed on, some to serve with Haughey, others to glower from the backbenches.
The one certain thing is that all of them knew that something serious was wrong. As did many opposition leaders. Garret FitzGerald's "flawed pedigree" speech bears rereading. Today it reads like a not-so-veiled prophecy. Conor Cruise O'Brien never relented in his pursuit of the truth. And others, like Vincent Browne, Peter Murtagh, Joe Joyce, Dick Walsh and Bruce Arnold, wrote about the world as they saw it.
But let us not forget either that others who saw this same world, who saw at first hand the wealth, who experienced the autocratic style, not just endorsed but seemed to exult in the personality and style of Haugheyism. The Fianna Fail TDs who elected Haughey over Colley, who twice endorsed him in "heaves", knew the man, knew the style and had heard the criticisms.
Yet not alone was he endorsed, but many seemed to glory in the excesses of Haugheyism. Let us not forget the cult of the personality ardfheiseanna, and let us remember too the arrogance of these years - and indeed much more.
Quite simply, Charlie Haughey was Fianna Fail in those years, and to assert otherwise was to invite immediate retribution.
And at a time when many in the media are portraying themselves as knights in shining armour, let us not forget that much of the Haughey myth was shaped by willing - and at times ruthless - media camp followers who gloried in the wealth and style of the man. And some of them until very recently.
Enough for now. Drapier's only point is that unless we all tell ourselves the truth about where we stood on Haugheyism we will never excise the poison. And that's not going to be easy. As Bertie Ahern knows too well.
We can start by answering the questions which can be answered. The story of the Opposition Leader's allowance should not be difficult to establish one way or the other. Drapier has faith in the utter integrity of Pat Farrell of Fianna Fail and believes answers - however unpalatable - will be provided. But a quick response would reassure.
Likewise, there needs to be a commitment in principle to reexamine the "inexplicable policy decisions" raised on Thursday by Dessie O'Malley. We need certainty that there will be a new tribunal, even if we have to await its terms of reference. We need to hear from people who claim election contributions intended for parties ended up being pocketed. We need more light on the nature of Dermot Ahern's visit to London.
But, most of all, we need to devise a permanent watchdog structure which ensures the good name of the vast majority of honest politicians is protected while having wide powers to investigate allegations and irregularities.
To lighter matters. The Seanad election. Drapier has been less than edified by the unseemly antics of some candidates in the Trinity constituency. It wouldn't have happened in Mary Robin- son's time.
The spectacle of apologies being issued in the course of an election campaign would never happen in the real world - after the election, maybe. But we've had Shane Ross and David Norris both receiving handsome apologies.
Drapier didn't really understand it. Ross and Norris, as far as Drapier could see, drove their Seanad colleagues to distraction with all-night sittings on the famous Universities Bill.
In fact, Drapier believes the last Seanad was the best in many years, not least because of the government minority status, and he merely reflects a general view when he praises the quality of the outgoing university senators. He regrets the departure of Joe Lee (to things presidential perhaps?) and feels Joe would have been re-elected. Fergal Quinn has put his business insights to very good use while Joe O'Toole has broadened out to being a radical and innovative legislator.
On the Trinity side Mary Henry has shown great compassion and common sense, especially on the Hepatitis C issue but on many other issues as well. David Norris is David Norris and makes the Seanad a livelier place and Shane Ross has defended his views and the Trinity interest to the extent he was prepared to lose the party whip and cross the floor. A rare enough thing in politics.