When two weeks ago in this column I raised the issue of the likely destabilising impact of the emergence of Sinn Féin as a player on the domestic political scene, especially in relation to the Progressive Democrats, I had not expected that within a matter of days this issue would blow up in the way it has since done.
Quite why Dermot Ahern chose this moment to raise the issue of Sinn Féin participation in government is still far from clear.
All kinds of explanations have been floated, including the suggestion that his remarks were designed to help McGuinness and Adams persuade the IRA to jump the last hurdle in the prolonged peace process.
Or perhaps it was to help the DUP over their last hurdle, by reassuring them that they would not be left too long on their own in government with Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland, without such a coalition being matched by a similar one in the Republic.
By contrast Olivia O'Leary, in one of her RTÉ broadcast essays, has suggested that the response by Dermot Ahern to a journalist's question was part of a Fianna Fáil scheme to persuade Labour once again to join in government with Fianna Fáil in order to keep Sinn Féin out of government.
For his part, Dermot Ahern has not done much to clarify the issue by appearing first to deny that the question that provoked his controversial response had been foreseen by him, and then saying that his answer to this unexpected question had been pre-discussed with the Taoiseach.
One cannot exclude the possibility that the Minister's remarks were in fact related in some way to the delicate process of bringing the peace process to early completion; a preoccupation that may have temporarily led him to forget the risk for his party of appearing more closely tied in the minds of our electorate with Sinn Féin - which at this point remains, after all, an IRA-linked party.
Because the Minister's comments were directed to the prospect of Sinn Féin being in government, the subsequent debate has centred on this issue. But while Sinn Féin's ultimate aim is, of course, to participate in government here as well as in the North, it seems unlikely that such a long-sighted party, whose leaders have been planning their strategy ahead since the late 1980s, would be so short-sighted as to wish to take on governmental responsibilities prematurely after the next election.
For Sinn Féin has yet to derive full benefit from the political role it has skilfully devised for itself within this jurisdiction as a proponent of the interests of the disadvantaged in urban working-class areas.
No, I believe the initial political challenge for Sinn Féin in this State will in fact be a slightly different one. The first business of the Dáil after the next election (having, of course, chosen a ceann comhairle, which in a tight post-election situation may prove difficult enough) will be the election of a taoiseach.
The outgoing holder of that office enjoys the right to have his name put forward first, so the first political test for post-paramilitary Sinn Féin as a newly democratic party will be whether or not to vote for Bertie Ahern as taoiseach.
As far as I am aware the only person who so far has chosen to address this particular aspect of the matter has been the Minister for Defence, Willie O'Dea, who in the course of the RTÉ Questions And Answers debate last Monday volunteered an assurance that Fianna Fáil would not accept office at the hands of Sinn Féin.
It would be interesting to know whether this statement was authorised by the Taoiseach or was just an O'Dea solo run. And it would be even more interesting to know just how Fianna Fáil would propose to give effect to such an assurance.
Let me suggest a possible scenario - involving just one of many possible outcomes of the next general election - in which Bertie Ahern would be unlikely to secure a majority without Sinn Féin support.
This scenario would involve Fianna Fáil recovering sufficient support within the next couple of years to limit its general election losses to 11 seats, while the PDs also lose three seats. Between them the three opposition parties gain 12 seats, and Sinn Féin two.
The same number of Independents as last time, namely 14, are returned, and, as in 2002, five of these vote for Bertie Ahern, while six oppose him. Last time four Independents abstained, but one has since joined Fine Gael, and in a very tight electoral situation one of the three remaining might be elected ceann comhairle, while the other two would be unlikely to abstain in such a tight situation but could float either way.
The accompanying table is based on this scenario. It sets out alternative possible votes for taoiseach. It will be seen that without Sinn Féin support Bertie Ahern could not secure the 83 votes necessary for election.
However, if Sinn Féin voted for him, and if the two floating Independents still supported him, he would be elected despite a withdrawal of support by the PDs.
Willie O'Dea seems to be suggesting that if Bertie Ahern were to be elected with Sinn Féin support, he would promptly resign and leave it to the opposition parties to secure the post of taoiseach, with the likely support of the two uncommitted Independents, who would presumably prefer to see Enda Kenny form a government than face immediately another election.
Does any reader find remotely credible an immediate resignation by Bertie Ahern in such circumstances?
Of course, all this is based on only one of an almost indefinite number of possible outcomes to the next, exceptionally unpredictable, election.
But I think this scenario will explain why I am sceptical about Willie O'Dea's attempt to reassure the electorate that, despite Dermot Ahern's expressed hope to see Sinn Féin in government, Fianna Fáil would in fact sacrifice the prospect of office in order to ensure that such a Sinn Féin-supported government does not emerge after the next election.