Madam, - Noel Whelan's article on the Taoiseach's appearance before the Mahon tribunal (Opinion and Analysis, September 15th) views the whole affair as a political altercation between "ardent supporters of Bertie Ahern, who see Ahern as the victim of a politically-motivated drip feed of leaks" and "Ahern's opponents, who feel he is getting his comeuppance". Furthermore, according to Mr Whelan, "the majority of the public" engage with this controversy merely as "the subject of pub talk or water-cooler conversation". In addition he thinks that the media are "flogging a dead horse".
However, the issues involved in the Taoiseach's appearance at the Mahon tribunal are more fundamental than a partisan argument between opposing political party supporters. After all, the tribunals exist because the members of our democratically elected Dáil, including the Taoiseach himself, deemed them necessary.
As with all our democratic and legal institutions in this democratic republic, therefore, the decisions to set up these tribunals were taken by the representatives of the people. All of us enjoy this privilege courtesy of those who achieved our hard-won democratic independence.
Whatever the result of the tribunal's investigations, it is a momentous occasion when the most powerful politician in the land has to answer to an inquiry which is asking questions on behalf of ordinary people on how he exercised that power. Contrary to Noel Whelan's view, therefore, this is no "stale story" but but real, live democracy. "Flogging a dead horse" it is not. - Yours, etc,
A. LEAVY,
Shielmartin Drive,
Sutton,
Dublin 13.
Madam, - I would like to congratulate you on your continuing coverage of the Mahon tribunal. To suggest that this topic is irrelevant or that we should ignore what happened 10 years ago is to miss perhaps the most important issue affecting Irish public life in recent years - namely the prevalence of patronage, back-room dealing and the suspicion (often unfounded) that our elected leaders cannot be trusted.
This tendency towards apathy and cynicism has to be reversed and this can only occur by shedding light on the days where these perceived lapses in integrity took place. If, once we have established exactly the extent of these lapses, we discover that the Taoiseach has been wronged, so much the better. However, in the meantime it is incumbent on the paper of record to report and explain exactly what is going on during this immensely important process. - Yours, etc,
JIM McGOWAN,
Sandyford,
Dublin 18.