Charlie McCreevy once said, as he gracefully accepted the Irish version of exile to Elba, that he knew about 25 per cent of Bertie Ahern, and that was 24 per cent more than anyone else. Certainly, Bertie is in many ways an enigmatic figure, but it is not hard to guess that his thoughts must turn these days to the question of what kind of political and social legacy he will leave behind him. Not that Bertie has any intention of losing the next election, but he is aware that Enda is finally reaping the benefits of punishing years spent visiting every corner of Ireland, writes Breda O'Brien
He knows too that the electorate is restless and looking for change. Even if Bertie secures that elusive third term, he is still approaching the end of his political life. No doubt too, standing at the graveside of the Boss would focus anyone's mind on what kind of legacy remains after a lifetime in politics.
While he may be the ultimate pragmatist, Bertie has certain core loyalties that have remained virtually unchanged. Tread on these at your peril, as Liz O'Donnell discovered when she took a careless and inaccurate swipe at All Hallows, a place dear to Bertie since childhood. There are other more obvious recurring themes. Loyalty to Fianna Fáil and dedication to sport are two. He has shown a dogged persistence during the Northern peace process. He is also faithful to certain Catholic rituals and devotions, although by no means an unconditional subscriber to church teaching.
Increasingly in later years, the theme of active participation and citizenship has been a preoccupation. Until recently, you could have added being pro-life to that list of core concerns and themes. In 2002, Bertie responded to Liz McManus's jibes in the Dáil with, "You are a pro-abortion party. You are a pro-choice party. I am not, that is the difficulty . . ."
Given that, it is extraordinary what is happening on Bertie's watch in relation to the right to life of the unborn. This week, in the R v R case, where the lives of three embryos hang in the balance, counsel for the Attorney General practically begged the judge not to define when life begins. Dr Mary Wingfield, a witness appearing for the Attorney General, declared that she could not say when human life began or when an embryo became a life. She does not regard embryos as entities as worthy of the same respect as a human being. Dr Wingfield is entitled to her views, odd though it may be that a doctor does not know when human life begins.
However, until recently, it would have been unthinkable that this would have been presented as the view of the State. The mother in this case wishes to save the lives of the embryos by having them implanted in her womb. Her legal representatives have been calling articulate and highly qualified witnesses from Ireland, Italy and Switzerland. Prof Gunther Rager, director of the Institute of Anatomy and Embryology in Freiburg, declared unequivocally that life begins at conception. He was speaking not from a moral or religious point of view but as a scientist. He said there is no justification for denying protection to "individual human beings".
Did we ever think we would see the day where witnesses called by the Attorney General in a Fianna Fáil government would argue that an embryo is not entitled to such protection? In Europe, Micheál Martin was merrily selling the pass on stem cell research. Such backward, unenlightened countries as Austria and Germany argued against funding destructive embryonic stem cell research, and wanted instead to increase funding for non-destructive adult stem cell research. Not Micheál Martin.
He declared loftily that "ethical subsidiarity" meant that we could not lecture other countries as to what they should do. Guess Dermot Ahern and Willie O'Dea forgot that this week when they called in the Israeli ambassador to explain why Israel has taken to shelling UN posts. Anyway, Micheál has an open mind on embryonic stem cell if it could help cure serious illnesses like Alzheimers. This "what harm is it if it will help someone?" approach does not stand up to scrutiny. Testing vaccines on children in orphanages arguably might help someone. It is rightly regarded as appalling, because it treats children as objects to be used for the good of others. Given that embryos are human beings at the earliest stage of development, and by definition cannot give consent, stem cell research involving the death of embryos is equally appalling. It treats human life as industrial raw material for pharmaceutical ingredients.
Only weeks ago, in the D case, counsel for the Irish Government argued at the European Court of Justice that an unborn child with so-called lethal abnormalities might not be covered by the constitutional clause guaranteeing a right to life to the unborn. I wonder how all the parents who nurture daily, or grieve daily for a child born with lethal abnormalities, feel about their State's glib statement? Carried to its logical conclusions, the implications are chilling. What incentive is there to provide funding and support for those considered to be of lesser value? What credibility could the State have as an agent encouraging citizens to engage in voluntarism, including, presumably, voluntary support for the families who face this heartbreak?
Pragmatists in Fianna Fáil may shrewdly and perhaps accurately assess that the pro-life movement is not the force that it once was. However, pragmatism carried too far causes revulsion. A certain minimum ethical consistency is required. You cannot urge people to be active citizens if at the same time you are urging judges to exclude the youngest humans from the protection of citizenship.
Bertie appointed Mary Davis, best known for her work with the Special Olympics, to the Task Force on Citizenship. Is he really happy that legal counsel for the State blithely proposed that those with the highest level of disabilities might not be entitled to constitutional protection before birth?
Maybe Charlie McCreevy is right, and none of us know anything about Bertie. After all, who would have guessed that a significant part of his legacy might be presiding over progressive erosion of protection for the earliest stage of human life?