In an interview with Garret FitzGerald broadcast on RTÉ television on Sunday evening last, I sought to make a point about corruption which got lost in a diversion about Charlie Haughey, writes Vincent Browne.
The point I was hoping to make was that the focus on personal corruption on the part of individual politicians obscured a more fundamental corruption: the use of State power to enrich the already rich and to impoverish the already poor; or at least the failure to use the coercive resources of the State to redistribute wealth, income, power, resources and respect in a fair way.
I cited the prioritisation during Garret's period as taoiseach of the refurbishment of the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, over the refurbishment of mental hospitals, as an instance of corruption of a far more fundamental character than anything any of the so-called corrupt politicians have done.
This was giving priority to the refurbishment of a building over the refurbishment of vulnerable people's lives.
As a society we have become massively rich over the last decade.
According to a study by Bank of Ireland Private Banking, there are at least 30,000 millionaires here and up to 100,000 millionaires if the value of personal residences is taken into consideration. Meanwhile, there are almost three-quarters of a million people, almost 20 per cent of the population, living on incomes that many on the wealthier side of the fence would consider risible - €11,000 or less for a single adult, €30,000 for two adults and three children.
It would be bad enough if the inequality stopped there at the level of income and wealth, but there is a vicious inequality spiral.
Those who live in relative poverty get worse healthcare, live in worse housing conditions, their children get worse education and face worse life prospects. They have less or no political influence, no media access, and in fact, no influence at all.
Is there not a corruption in the establishment of a society that is so hugely unequal? And, if not establishment, then in allowing such a society to emerge when State power could prevent it? I sought to recite the startling statistics from the report Inequalities in Mortalities by the Institute of Public Health, which show that for all the major killer diseases, the mortality rate for those in the lower occupational classes were multiples, sometimes high multiples, of those in the higher occupational classes.
Garret adroitly cut me off, insisting that because he had improved the relative position of those on social welfare while he was taoiseach during a period of recession, this was sufficient proof of his commitment to equality.
But he left a hugely unequal society.
Of course, the point has even more pointed relevance for the members of the Labour Party who were in government with him: Dick Spring, Barry Desmond, Ruairí Quinn et al. There does not seem to be any awareness on the part of those in Labour who have been in government in the last several decades - and remember, aside from Fianna Fáil, Labour has been in government for longer than any other party in the last 25 years - that the point of the exercise for those of the "left" is to create an equal society, and failing to do that while in government, or at least failing to advance significantly in that direction, is a failure. It is the raison d'etre of Labour; if not, then Labour stands for nothing.
The last time Labour was in government, from 1992 to 1997, it oversaw the emergence of the new inequality. Budget after budget of the governments of that period, including those when Ruairí Quinn was minister for finance, favoured the rich over the poor.
I raise this in the context of the preparations there are under way for election 2007. Labour is intent on getting into office, so intent that it is not intent at all on achieving anything at all specific when in office, certainly not at all intent on advancing significantly the ideal equality.
Class relations are fine. It doesn't matter that one class calls all the shots, other classes stand by and the poorest class lives in relative misery.
There is no point in Labour being in government again, aside from the career fulfilment that Labour ministers may enjoy, unless they subvert this status quo. Unless, after they leave office, there is a significant shift of resources and power in society.
But there is not the slightest hope that this will happen, because Labour has already sacrificed its purpose for the venal purpose of office. This is not done consciously or, in a personal sense, corruptly, but it is essentially what is happening.
What is admirable about Garret FitzGerald - well one of the things that is admirable about Garret FitzGerald - is that he cared about these equality issues, and he did and does grapple with them.
But his focus on corruption as a personal trait - essentially a Catholic view - obscures a more fundamental corruption: the subservience of the State and society to the interests of the rich and powerful.