Let us not flinch from the findings of the Moriarty tribunal out of some misplaced sense of sympathy for the dead. They are shocking. For those who believed the worst about Charles J Haughey and, yet, tried to balance the good and bad decisions in his leadership of this State, these findings, written down in black and white, exceed the worst expectations. And for those who looked the other way, deluded themselves about his vision of Ireland, and allowed his charisma to get the better of them, can they continue to have it both ways? These things can't be wrong and right all at the same time.
The only surprise about the Moriarty report into the activities of Mr Haughey, while he was taoiseach of this State, is that an authorised body, appointed by the Houses of the Oireachtas, has found that the very incidence and scale of secretive payments from senior members of the business community "devalued the quality of a modern democracy". This judgment was exacerbated by the fact that there were difficult economic times nationally and "governments led by Mr Haughey were championing austerity".
The tribunal estimated that, in today's terms and taking into account the salary of a public representative in the 1980s, Mr Haughey's £9.1 million in payments amounted to a multiple of many times his salary amounting to the equivalent of €45 million or a minimum of €31 million today.
The most shameful, the most dishonest, the most selfish and the most disappointing finding for Fianna Fáil supporters is how Mr Haughey purloined Brian Lenihan's liver money. Mr Haughey knew that a maximum of £100,000 was needed to fund Mr Lenihan's liver operation. Yet, the tribunal established that as much as £265,000 may have been raised and only £70,283.06 was applied for the operation in the United States.
There are many other disturbing findings in the Moriarty report relating to prominent persons in this State, Ben Dunne being only one of them. There is the issue of the passports-for-sale controversy. The one most worthy of deprecation is the supine behaviour of Allied Irish Banks in Dame Street towards Mr Haughey and that bank's dishonest denial to the Evening Press at the time in relation to his indebtedness. They would have done the State some service if they had treated him, as a customer, in the way that they have treated others.
The Moriarty tribunal may have taken nine years to complete its first report. It should not be forgotten that it had three decades of evidence to investigate. It met with denial, obfuscation and dishonesty at every hand's turn.
It has made a particular point of stating that it was not preparing a political biography of Mr Haughey. It does record in its report, however, that the diligence and capability with which he discharged his daily responsibilities included "elements of fear and domination engendered by him in individuals in both the private and public sectors". Is that how we want our public life to be led?