There is no distinction between a gift for personal or political ends when the recipient is a public figure, writes Elaine Byrne.
The Taoiseach's evidence before the Mahon tribunal has generated confusion regarding his distinction between a personal and a political donation.
Bertie Ahern told the tribunal on Thursday that the £5,000 cheque he used to open a building society account in Drumcondra in January 1994, when minister for finance, was "a political donation, for my personal use". He went on to say that he had accepted two payments totalling £12,000 from his brother and his mother.
Yesterday it emerged that Celia Larkin, his former partner, was granted a loan of £30,000 in 1993 in order to buy a house for her elderly relatives. This was repaid this year. At the time of the transaction, Larkin was Ahern's "life partner", as he has since described her.
Larkin's solicitor has told the tribunal she is a private individual and that this is her private life.
Both individuals have rationalised the acceptance and use of these donations and loans as personal and private and thereby not of public concern and certainly not warranting tribunal investigation.
The definition of a donation, and by implication, what constitutes as improper, is being reassessed. The parameters of private and public life are also being re-evaluated.
It has been impossible not to notice Martin Mansergh's spirited and energetic defence of the Taoiseach over the last few days. Indeed, in an attempt to understand these distinctions and re-evaluations, it may be useful to accept Mansergh's advice.
Mansergh was a columnist with The Irish Times for three years before he gallantly laid down his pen to run as a candidate in the 2007 general election. In doing so, he said that his journalistic objectivity would "inevitably come under increasing strain, creating a potential conflict of interest".
In this, his last opinion piece, he counselled that, "public discourse and analysis is based on conventional simplifications of complex situations. The truth, closely examined, is full of nuances and qualifications" (May 24th, 2006).
Moreover, Mansergh also evoked the philosophy of Kant, who emphasised the development of reason within the human species through a historical process.
In other words, what can history tell us which can help us to understand these apparent complex distinctions between personal and political donations? For one, it is nothing new; these justifications have been made many times before.
In 1935, the then minister for industry and commerce, Seán Lemass, was accused of improperly allocating valuable State mining leases to two members of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party, including his constituency colleague, Deputy Robert Briscoe.
In response, Lemass immediately established a parliamentary committee of inquiry, the precursor to the tribunal process, to investigate and he was cleared of wrongdoing.
In his Dáil speech in defence of Lemass, the then taoiseach, Eamon de Valera, asserted that there was a difference between political and personal gain.
"Here were charges," said de Valera, "of improper action, partisan action, corrupt action in a sense - although corruption, of course, properly means using one's political office, one's public office, for personal gain. It was not personal gain the minister was accused of, but partisanship and giving gain to his friends."
James Dillon, an Independent TD and later leader of Fine Gael, offered similar justifications.
In a 1945 Dáil debate on Seanad election corruption he told the Dáil: "There is a difference between private sin and public sin. Private sins are the individual's own business. Those who do slippery things by stealth have at least left to them their sense of shame."
These validations were again evident in the 1968 Dáil debate regarding the circumstances surrounding the sale of land belonging to the then minister for finance, Charles J Haughey. PJ Burke, Fianna Fáil TD and father of Ray Burke, beseeched that: "We are descending so low in the political life of this country that no man can sell his property. Why does Deputy Fitzpatrick not deal with the motion? Why is he dealing with a personal thing?"
Many years later, these political and personal distinctions are at the heart of the Taoiseach's current difficulties. The Taoiseach's patience has undoubtedly been tested by the lengthy probing of details of his personal life. The Taoiseach, the Government, the Opposition, the public and the tribunal are naturally uncomfortable with this.
For many years, there was reluctance, by all sections of society, to focus on the private financial affairs of politicians. Historically, there existed a clear separation between the private and public lives.
The McCracken, Mahon and Moriarty tribunal reports have exposed the consequences of this.
The dictionary definition of donation is that of the act of contributing or the provision of a gift.
What happens to it once it is received, whether for political or personal ends, is irrelevant if that individual is a public figure. There are no nuances and qualifications.
Political life brings with it ethical responsibilities, and indeed expectations, above those demanded of private citizens.
The definition of corruption has itself become corrupted. Whether we like it or not, or agree with it, actual, potential and perceived corruption are often regarded as one and the same. This is unfair, but this is political life.
Public expectations of our political leaders necessitate, as Mansergh said, that Caesar's wife must be above suspicion, or be able to dispel it, if it arises (Irish Times, January 1st, 2005).
A perception of corruption is now enough to undermine the public's confidence in the moral authority of their political leadership.
This is exactly what happened in the case of Ian Paisley jnr, who was forced to resign as junior minister at Stormont this week.
Paisley jnr purchased a second home from the north Antrim businessman, Seymour Sweeney, whom he had also assisted with lobbying activities in relation to local land deals and planning issues.
He had remained on his father's parliamentary payroll after becoming a minister. Furthermore, he had seemingly high joint rental payments with his father on constituency offices owned by a company of which Paisley jnr's father-in-law is a sole director.
Although Paisley jnr vigorously denies any wrongdoing, and though media inquiries did not produce any evidence of illegality, it is understood that the DUP invited him to retire to the backbenches or face suspension by his party. Essentially, the DUP issued an ultimatum based on a moral pretext following consideration of all the nuances and qualifications available to them.
It has also emerged that DUP MLA Gregory Campbell paid his wife £12,600 per year for rent on his constituency office.
Paying relatives for rent, using Assembly allowances, is permitted by rules governing Stormont though not under Westminster rules.
The distinction between personal and political donations has reached a level of debate, and sanction, in the North that has only just begun here. More than ever before, it is no longer good enough to simply draw lines in the sand.
In order to avoid future misunderstandings, these lines must be ploughed, not only through legislation, but in everyday political practice. Public trust deserves as much.
Dr Elaine Byrne is writing a definitive history of political corruption in Ireland