Integrity in public office and confidence in the political process involve adherence to certain basic principles of ethical behaviour, suggests Tom Cooney
A taoiseach and his or her Ministers set the ethical tone of public life. We rightfully expect them to meet the highest standards of ethical conduct, and to appreciate that preserving people's confidence in the political process is imperative.
When a minister financially misbehaves or uses patronage to reward friends, we are rightfully concerned. Those wrongs strike at the very heart of the people's confidence in a government and the minister's motives for making decisions.
Because ministers have the power to shape and implement policy, lobbyists will target them. We also realise that some lobbyists will stoop to trying unethical means to win influence. Our worry is that powerful groups will exercise undue influence on policymaking.
We expect ministers to understand what is right and what is wrong in public life. What is right or what is wrong isn't a question of law or code. Politicians of character and integrity who are in politics to serve recognise the immutable principles of ethical ministerial behaviour. One of those principles is that a minister must refuse any gift or loan or hospitality that might - or might appear to - compromise their judgment or attract an improper obligation.
So a minister must ensure that no conflict arises between his or her public duty and private interests. But that is not enough if he or she is serious about maintaining public trust. The Minister must also ensure that no such conflict appears to arise.
In 1993, when Bertie Ahern, who was then a minister, accepted loans amounting to €50,000 from his friends, he failed to ensure that no conflict appeared to arise between his public duty and private interests. He did not disclose the loan. Some of his lenders later accepted his patronage. And his paying back the money now creates the appearance that he has done so to save his political skin.
In 1994, he accepted a gift of over €10,000 from businessmen in Manchester after speaking to them about Ireland's economy. Although he was a minister, he says that he spoke as a private individual and not as a minister. There appears to be some doubt as to whether he did actually speak at the dinner; but either way, he can't shed his ministerial skin that easily.
He was a minister subject to a cabinet practice that advised ministers to return "expensive gifts". That practice reflected the principle that a minister should ensure that no conflict arises - or appears to arise - between his or her public duty and private interests. As a minister he was responsible to judge any course of action involving an offer of gifts or loans or hospitality when it happened. The duty was to weigh the ethical implications then.
A British politician sought to put the point in very concrete terms. Ask yourself at the time whether you would be happy to see your acceptance of the gift or loan on the front page of tomorrow's newspaper. Another test might be: would you be happy if a judge acted in this way?
Another principle deals with the problem of ministers advancing friends by appointing them to boards or offices. In practice, it is hard to prove or disprove that ministers use patronage to advance or reward friends. There are no independent checks on ministerial decisions to appoint people to boards or offices.
But there is an ethical principle that holds that ministers should only appoint people who have the qualifications, experience and qualities that match the needs of the job. The worry is that exploiting patronage to advance or reward friends is likely to undermine people's confidence in the system of government. People may assume that appointing people on grounds other than merits, for example, in return for gifts or loans, reflects improper motives.
Bertie Ahern appointed four of his lenders to public positions. Those individuals may have been suitable for the roles he vested in them. He says that he appointed them not to reward them but because they were his friends. What he failed to appreciate was that appointing them to public positions for either reason creates the appearance that they were appointed for motives other than merit.
There is another side to political integrity. If a politician has supported the removal of a minister who has taken a gift or loan from business people, we must assume that he or she did so as a matter of principle. He or she was concerned about the substance - or appearance - of propriety in public life. The test of integrity then becomes whether that politician is willing to act consistently with that principle in the hardest of cases.
Not doing so for self-interest would be a flight from integrity. Michael McDowell stands for political integrity; now he must ensure that progressive democracy doesn't become a synonym forregressive ethics in public life.
• Tom Cooney teaches law in University College Dublin