There is nothing more like a neutered cat than a reforming Opposition leader who finds himself suddenly projected into power. Mr Bruton, after his statement in the Dail this week ruling out any immediate possibility of a referendum diluting the constitutional requirement of strict cabinet confidentiality, must now explain why, after the collapse of the last coalition, he and the leaders of the Labour Party and Democratic Left blithely undertook to do just that.
The words of the policy agreement, "A Government of Renewal", are explicit. While making it clear that the normal rule would be confidentiality to maintain the concept of collective responsibility, "The relaxation of absolute confidentiality in all circumstances will be put (our italics) to the people by way of referendum at the earliest possible opportunity". There is no suggestion here of difficulty.
Now, 22 months after the undertaking was given, the people are told they will not have that opportunity, at least in measurable time. The Taoiseach served up tattily predictable reasons, bearing the finger prints of the real authorities in this State the heads of the Civil Service for whom the healthy breeze of legitimate public curiosity is a horror to be avoided at all costs. "Constitutional, legal and administrative issues" had been identified during the course of preparing legislation, he declared. The voice was that of Mr Bruton, but its inflections were unmistakably those of Sir Humphrey.
What is, of course, unclear at present is whether there has been a collective reneging, and if all three party leaders in the Coalition are equally implicated in the decision to eat their own words. It is a trivial point, but it does illustrate the impotence into which the voter is thrown by the constitutional ban in matters which may be relevant to how he or she votes.
Absolutes ought to have no place in the running of a democracy. The Supreme Court decision, by a majority of one judge and against the opinion of two other senior judges did not suggest a clear cut legal position, as indeed common sense shows. Collective cabinet responsibility may be a very desirable thing politically, where the stability of governments is concerned but it is highly undesirable, as Mr Justice O'Hanlon pointed out in the High Court case when he found in favour of some modulation, if it covers corruption or goes against the public interest. Two valuable principles are in conflict, and it is hardly logical or acceptable in a democracy to maintain a position where one invariably takes precedence over the other.
After the Beef Tribunal, where many millions of the taxpayers' money was spent to so little effect, can there be any doubt that the Supreme Court's strict ruling of the Constitution must be made more balanced? As the tribunal of inquiry into the Blood Bank scandal begins, must there be apprehension that any Ministerial responsibility will be hidden under a shroud of official silence?
Mr Bruton mentioned one odd "principle" when addressing the Dail the convention, initiated by Mr de Valera, under which no note is taken of Cabinet discussions, only of decisions. Some principle! How is it that, in virtually every other western democracy, things are done more responsibly, and there is no need to shield Ministers with a blanket ban at the expense, possibly, of justice? The Taoiseach is not convincing.