The Taoiseach knows that whatever he says is likely to raise further questions and lead to ever more complications, writes Stephen Collins, Political Correspondent
It has gradually begun to dawn on politicians of all parties that the political crisis which has slowly but surely enveloped Bertie Ahern, since the disclosure that he received payments from businessmen in 1993, when he was minister for finance, has the potential to undermine his leadership.
He may still be able to salvage his position with a full statement detailing all the facts of the payments, but with every passing day his position becomes more difficult.
The Taoiseach's problem is that while he is under huge pressure to make a detailed statement to rescue his position, he knows that whatever he says is likely to raise further questions and lead to ever more complications.
At the heart of the Taoiseach's dilemma is that no statement can explain away the fundamental principle that it is simply unacceptable for a politician to be under a personal financial obligation to anyone.
It was that principle, endorsed repeatedly by Mr Ahern himself, that destroyed the ministerial career of Michael Lowry, the reputation of former taoiseach Charles Haughey, and in recent times led to the resignation of minister of state Ivor Callely. It now threatens Mr Ahern's position like no other controversy of his political career.
The fact that the payments made to Mr Ahern were designed to help him deal with his marriage breakdown has generated a deal of sympathy for the Taoiseach among supporters and even opponents, and that may yet be enough to save him, whatever the unanswered questions. It was the difficult personal circumstances of the case that led to such a cautious response by the Opposition to the initial disclosure.
Because the facts revealed in The Irish Times arose from such a personal matter, the Taoiseach himself may not have been fully alert to the political dangers inherent in the case.
His first public utterances about the matter in Clare last Thursday clearly revealed how angry he was at the fact that the payments had come into the public domain, but he did not appear to appreciate just how politically dangerous the controversy was capable of becoming.
Whatever the sympathy for the Taoiseach's family circumstances in 1993, the Opposition will now not settle for anything less than a detailed account of all the money paid to help him deal with the situation and a list of all the donors.
If he fails to provide clear information on both counts the Opposition parties and the media will keep up the pressure and the Progressive Democrats will be forced to take a position on the matter.
The Tánaiste, Michael Mc- Dowell, was initially supportive of the Taoiseach but has since kept his counsel. Ultimately, though, he will have to either give clear, unequivocal backing to the Taoiseach or force the pace on the issue in order to distance the PDs from the fallout.
Mr McDowell's course of action could well determine his party's fortunes in the forthcoming election.
The Taoiseach's problem is that any statement, no matter how full, will almost inevitably create as many questions as it answers. Already the Opposition has been lining up to make hay if some, or all, of the money was paid in the form of a gift and no tax was paid on it.
Alternatively, if the money was given in the form of a loan, questions will arise about the failure of the Taoiseach to disclose it on his annual declaration of interests submitted to the Standards in Public Office Commission.
The Taoiseach's initial carelessness in the late 1990s about declaring the value of his office accommodation at St Luke's in Drumcondra, provided by some of the same people who made contributions to help him through his separation case, never became a source of real political embarrassment to him, but any failure to declare loans may be seen in a different light.
The disclosure of the full list of donors will also inevitably raise questions about whether any of them received anything in return for the contributions. Mr Ahern's friend, the businessman David McKenna, so far the only confirmed donor, was appointed to the board of Enterprise Ireland and the Opposition is certain that some of the other donors will also be shown to have been appointed to State boards. As the financial rewards for serving on State boards are relatively paltry, the list will be scrutinised closely to see if anybody on it benefited in a more lucrative fashion. If State contracts were awarded, or some other form of favourable treatment by the State was provided for some of the donors, there could be real trouble.
While the Taoiseach was still refusing to make a detailed statement yesterday, the expectation is that he will make some kind of statement today to try and clarify the situation before the Dáil returns tomorrow. There is considerable anger in Fianna Fáil that Mr Ahern has been put under so much pressure over a matter most of his colleagues regard as being purely personal. However, there is also some puzzlement that he has not come forward with a more comprehensive response to date.
"I don't see what the problem is," said one respected backbencher yesterday. "The issue should not have been leaked and I want to see the leakers pursued and exposed, but now that it has become such a big political issue I don't see why Bertie doesn't come out and tell us the exact amount involved and who gave it to him. If he does the public will be on his side."
It is clearly not as simple as that because if it were the Taoiseach would already have taken that course of action. Friends and foes alike will be holding their breaths today in anticipation of what Mr Ahern is going to say.