Politicians are no different from any other group in resisting reform. But there comes a time when the damage being done through outdated procedures becomes insupportable and radical reform is the only way forward. We have reached that stage where the corporate funding of political parties is concerned. The electorate is punch-drunk from revelations of back-stairs dealings and corrupt payments in the political and planning systems. The work of the McCracken, Moriarty and Flood tribunals has awoken society to the reality of the grubby interface between politics and business. People no longer accept the traditional justification for corporate largesse: "no favours asked and none received."
In that context, it is disappointing that the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, should adopt a defensive attitude towards a funding system that has become increasingly unacceptable and suspect. His argument that to do otherwise would be contrary to the Constitution is not credible, particularly in light of the restrictions on donations and the disclosure requirements that already apply through legislation. Quoting the Constitution as a reason for not taking action on a wide variety of important matters has become something of a bolt-hole for governments. But if Mr Ahern has solid legal advice to support his contention, it should be published. Declaring to the Dail that: "I stand by the Constitution" is not sufficient. Even members of his own party do not agree with him.
One consequence of the Taoiseach's declaration is that the Government's proposal for the establishment of an all-party Dail committee to consider the drafting of legislation affecting party funding, corruption, the regulation of lobbyists, the protection of "whistleblowers" and related matters will be stillborn. The Labour Party made the ending of corporate funding a condition for its participation. And Fine Gael said it would not engage in negotiations without the Labour Party. Yesterday, Mr Ahern told the Dail that, in the absence of an all-party committee, the Government would produce its own legislation.
The likelihood of reaching an all-party consensus on political funding has always been slim. Reform of the political system generates strong resistance both within and between parties. The first Bill on the issue, dealing with declarations of interests by elected representatives and donations to political parties, was introduced by the Labour Party in 1991 and was summarily dismissed by the then government. The legislation that was eventually passed, after years of debate and disagreement, represented watered-down versions of original proposals.
There is an unstated imperative in politics to secure and maintain advantage over your political rivals. And the level of political funding available, particularly from the corporate sector, has always divided Irish politics. Recent legislation affecting donations and limiting the amount of money that can be spent by parties and individuals at election time has levelled the pitch somewhat. But all parties want to retain specific advantages. Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats favour corporate funding; the Labour Party wishes to retain trade union support and Sinn Fein hopes to continue to enjoy funding from the United States and Australia.
In the present climate - as the political system suffers trauma from the revelations at the Flood tribunal - the cleanest and the clearest action would be to grant responsibility for political funding to individual citizens and to the State. If corporate and similar sources of income are to be banned, however, other funding must be provided. Already, one-third of election expenses is borne by the State. An increase in that subvention would be warranted in the move to clean up politics.