Forgiving Charles Haughey

Sir, - The tendency of many of your columnists to use the words "we", "us" and "our" when discussing Irish life, as if the nation…

Sir, - The tendency of many of your columnists to use the words "we", "us" and "our" when discussing Irish life, as if the nation were one homogeneous mass with no conflict of viewpoint or interest, can be a source of irritation. Normally this irritation remains just that, but John Waters's indulgence in this form of intellectual laziness sends it right through the pain threshold ("12 reasons why Charlie should be forgiven", Opinion, October 23rd).

Will John Waters object if I, along with possibly half or more of the population, dissociate myself from the "we" who, he claims, "created" Charles Haughey, were "defined" by him, got "lots of laughs" from him and now seek "vengeance" on him? The only aspect of Haughey's persona on which there was a national consensus was his ability, and in the case of a goodly fraction of "us", this translated into a fear of how that ability might be abused, to the ultimate detriment of democratic institutions.

The people who felt like this belonged to every section of Irish society, including a sizeable portion of Mr Haughey's own party. This was why he was never granted an overall majority, and why his leadership excited so much dissension within Fianna Fail.

The facts revealed at the tribunals have shown how well grounded was that fear. Saying, as Mr Waters does, that there is no evidence that any of his benefactors sought or received favours from him misses the point. The notion that one can use political life to enrich oneself personally is deeply corrosive of any democracy, and it is one whose origin, overwhelmingly, is identified with the career of Mr Haughey. Still, for Mr Waters there is always the consolation of the "aura of majesty and power" of the "epic character" - concepts which sit very uneasily with the idea of political life as public service in a democratic republic.

READ MORE

Forgiveness tendered when it has not been sought is unusual enough; when it is offered in the face of an insistence that there is no case to answer and of contempt shown to efforts to get at the truth, it begins to look like something else - maybe selfabasement? But then, isn't that what people do in front of majesty? - Yours, etc.,

Dermot Meleady, Dublin 3.