Mary Harney, apparently, took her colleagues by surprise with her sudden decision to resign from the leadership of the Progressive Democrats yesterday. She reached the decision, she said, during a longer than usual holiday.
Although an emotionally volatile personality, to those that know her, she has left an indelible mark on Irish political life: firstly, as a senatorial appointment of Jack Lynch; secondly as a courageous critic of Charles Haughey's leadership; thirdly, as a founder of the Progressive Democrats; fourthly, as the junior minister who cleared the smog-filled skies of Dublin; fifthly, as Michael McDowell correctly recorded, the most successful employment minister in recent history; and, finally, as the Minister for Health who commenced the difficult process of institutional reform in our appalling health system.
Her timing is not unfavourable for the PDs. It gives the new leader eight months to build up a profile and galvanise the party, once again, to confound the opinion polls. Whether her departure proves to be to the party's advantage or disadvantage next May will depend to a large extent on the identity of her successor and the circumstances of the succession.
Mary Harney will be a hard act to follow. She achieved many welcome "firsts" for a woman: the first leader of a political party in the Dáil and the first holder of the high office of Tánaiste. But it is her courage and conviction which really set her apart. She incurred the wrath of Charles Haughey for voting in favour of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. She risked her career to join others in founding the Progressive Democrats. She was a firm advocate of taxation reform. She believed that old-age pensioners should be looked after by the State. Her self-belief and commitment to reform compelled her to become Minister for Health. And she has expressed the hope that her successor might leave her in the post where, in truth, there is much more still to be done.
Ms Harney's decision has profound implications for her party. The outcome of her succession spat with Michael McDowell during the summer, which hardened divisions within the party, indicated a determination on her part to fight the next election as leader. Now the PDs must choose a new leader at a time when the ill-feeling generated by the row has not altogether disappeared.
Mr McDowell seems certain to be a candidate. He has the highest profile in the party and is extremely able. Liz O'Donnell and Tom Parlon may also put their hats in the ring. The PDs' standing in the opinion polls is a mere 2 per cent and several of their seats are at risk. The cynics might suggest that on her summer holiday she saw the future and the PDs were diminished and out of office. The party has been a dynamic force since its foundation, challenging the unimaginative thinking of the bigger parties and pushing change and reform on to the agenda. The choice of a new leader will determine whether it can continue this legacy.