Independent Ireland was very fortunate in the high standards of personal and political integrity of its revolutionary leaders. Moreover, the idealism of the revolution was sustained through 40 years, during which, deeply divided by the Treaty, two groups alternated in the State's political leadership.
One can be critical of the negative effects upon our society of the bitterness that persisted among some of these leaders. One can also fault the lack of dynamism that some showed in later years. But their supreme merit was that they could never be accused of feathering their own nests - abusing their political positions for financial advantage.
Such integrity was not inevitable, as the post-revolutionary history of other new states demonstrates. The society the State inherited from a colonial past was not one where public morality was greatly valued. The local government system, founded 25 years before independence, had significant corruption. When appointing people at local level, bribes were paid for votes until the new State gave the power of appointment to an impartial Local Appointments Commission.
Moreover, many hangers-on of the revolution, and even some of its activists, strongly expected rewards in the form of jobs, to be awarded, not on merit, but for allegiance to the new regime.
The Cumann na Gaedheal government was persistently reviled by many of it supporters for failing to "deliver" such rewards, regardless of the consequences this would have had for the standards of public administration.
However, once eliminated at local level, financial corruption was kept at bay. There was a very temporary reappearance in the early 1940s when the very limited size of the new Seanad's initial electorate enabled some unscrupulous councillors to put a price upon the votes cast.
The second generation of politicians thus inherited a remarkable tradition of high standards of financial integrity, political idealism and a sense of duty to the State.
For many of us of that generation, right across the political spectrum, the maintenance of these standards was a crucial commitment. When, from the mid1960s, we saw signs of these standards being eroded, there was deep anxiety in all parties.
Regardless of past divisions or current political differences, many in Fine Gael and Labour shared privately with the Colleys and O'Malleys of Fianna Fail a sense of fear and concern for the future - and of frustration at our combined inability to contain what we saw as an alarming development.
I have to say that a major worry since then has been an apparent lack of concern from the public about these issues. This passivity encouraged a narrow majority of the Fianna Fail parliamentary party to ignore worries expressed by George Colley about "low standards in high places".
Those, both in Fianna Fail and outside, who persisted in expressing their concerns were cleverly accused by sections of the media and public opinion of committing a new and apparently grave offence - that of "taking the high moral ground".
The political climate thus generated encouraged a lowering of standards in a section of the business community. From this dangerous situation we may now have a chance of being rescued - as much by luck as through heightened media vigilance or a reversal of public tolerance of low standards.
Indeed, judging by some of the "vox pops" we have recently seen on television, we cannot yet rely on public concern for standards in public life to sustain the momentum of the present fortuitously-created opportunity to turn our backs on what has been a dismal period in Irish politics.
Against this discouraging background of public opinion, the politicians in all parties who are deeply worried about these matters must grasp the present unexpected opportunity to halt what could be a disastrous slide towards a grubby kind of politics.
However, for this process to succeed, party political point-scoring must be avoided; it is mutually counter-productive for the two main parties as they both have former Ministers whose behaviour has been successfully questioned.
It is unnecessary to dwell on the undeniable need for a further tribunal to clear up outstanding issues. One must hope that the political parties can co-operate fruitfully in devising terms of reference for this investigation that will ensure a thorough investigation, both of the Ansbacher Accounts and of potentially relevant activities of the ministers whose conduct has been impugned.
While these terms of reference must be drawn tightly enough to avoid another beef tribunal debacle, they should provide that the tribunal be both authorised and required to follow up any leads it may elicit as to possible offences involving other people, whether in the Oireachtas, the local authorities or business.
For this is our one great chance to eliminate any abuses that may have crept into our political system since our revolutionary leaders handed over our State as free from corruption as it was when they first started to govern it 40 earlier.
If this root-and-branch examination is to be completed successfully, it is essential that a constitutional referendum on Cabinet confidentiality be held in conjunction with the presidential election. Any legislation needed to enable investigations of certain Cabinet decisions should be enacted immediately.
Two other important issues need to be addressed.
Firstly, our libel laws should be modified to remove the constraints that now inhibit legitimate and necessary investigative journalism into abuses in our society and permit persons suspected of malpractices to secure injunctions restraining the publication of articles they do not like. The public interest requires that public figures be fully open to such scrutiny - subject only to provisions inhibiting accusations proven to be malicious, or ones extraneous to their public life.
Secondly, there should be a reconsideration of the proposal by the Government parties to review the two parts of the Electoral Act 1970, authorising State aid for political parties. If these parts of the Act, due to come into force in January, were to be repealed, the political parties would again need the business sector for the £1 million a year for running expenses and £1.35 million for general election expenses which, under this new legislation, the State is to provide from January.
In the light of the McCracken report, it would surely be inappropriate to now reburden political parties with such a heavy dependence upon business contributions. It would be much better for the Government to review the adequacy of the proposed election funding as a substitute for business contributions.