Dunnes has the bread and we get the circuses

THE fact that a feud within a private company has created a crisis in the political system tells us what we need to know about the workings of power in Ireland.

The internecine struggles in Dunnes Stores are the main event, the holders of some of the highest offices in the land a mere sideshow. Information that the citizens of this State need to have is private property, artillery in the battle for control of a business with an annual turnover of nearly £1 billion.

The Tanaiste has to go to a wealthy family as a suppliant to ask for information that relates not to private business transactions but to the heart and soul of Government.

Dunnes has the bread, we get the circuses. Watch one Minister fall off the high wire while another climbs the greasy pole. Tingle with suspense as you wait for the appearance of the great Mysterio who will make £1 million disappear before your eyes. But don't imagine you have any right to look behind the curtain and glimpse the backroom where money talks and the representatives of the sovereign people answer "yessir!".

Seldom has the self importance of the democratic system been so pathetically exposed as it was last Tuesday. On that day, the Dail debated the Michael Lowry affair and not one TD had sufficient respect for the citizens who elected them to believe they had the right to know the name of the senior Fianna Fail figure believed to be mentioned in the Price Waterhouse report as the recipient of £1.1 million from Dunnes Stores.

That showed how little has changed since the scandals of the early 1990s. Of the three central pieces of legislation aimed at cleaning up politics, two (an Electoral Act to control the funding of political parties and a Freedom of Information Act) have not yet seen the light of day. And the third, the Ethics in Public Office Act, has emerged from the last week as well intentioned but ineffectual in addressing public cynicism.

Recently, we have been told repeatedly that if the Ethics Act had been in place in 1993, when Ben Dunne paid for the refurbishment of Michael Lowry's home, that fact would have been disclosed. But this is clearly not true. As a member of the Dail, Michael Lowry would merely have had to register his interests.

And his register entry gives no indication that he had what a source close to him described as "an intensely close relationship" with Dunnes Stores. Indeed, the Act states flatly that it shall not be necessary to specify ... the amount or monetary value of any interest" or of any payment that is made as part of a TD's business. And this exemption applies to Ministers as well as to TDs.

EVEN if he had been a Minister, there is nothing in the Act that would have made the slightest difference to Michael Lowry's relationship with Ben Dunne. The Act requires the Government to draw up guidelines for Ministers. The guidelines are supposed to cover a situation in which a Minister "is offered or supplied with ... property or a service at a price that is less than the commercial price" - exactly the situation in which Michael Lowry seems to have been.

But, and it is a very big but indeed, there are two escape clauses that would seem to apply to Michael Lowry. The guidelines do not apply if the property or service is given by "a friend" for personal reasons, or by virtue of some "position held or status enjoyed by the person to whom it is offered" other than ministerial office.

Ben Dunne was, we are told, a friend of Michael Lowry's. And the £208,000 worth of work on his home was done because of a business relationship. Even if Ben Dunne had paid for the refurbishment of Michael Lowry's house while the latter was a Minister and after the Ethics Act came into force, it would have been perfectly in order.

And besides, the Ethics Act has a huge escape hatch for Ministers: it specifically excludes "contributions to elections expenses" from its remit. Any money paid during an election campaign and for the purpose of promoting either a political party or an individual candidate is not covered. Handing over huge amounts of cash to a leading politician during an election campaign is perfectly acceptable practice.

And in spite of the repercussions of the Lowry affair, political leaders continue to defend that practice. Dick Spring, to his credit, disclosed a Dunnes Stores payment to Mary Robinson's election campaign but did not suggest that Labour would in future refuse to accept such money. Mary Harney insisted that election contributions are essential to the functioning of democracy. Bertie Ahern said they were "perfectly legitimate".

Business contributions to political parties have been disclosed just once in the course of the beef tribunal. We learned there, for instance, that during the 1980s, Larry Goodman gave £175,000 to Fianna Fail. We learned that from 1987 to 1989 inclusive, the three companies granted export credit insurance cover for Iraq by a Fianna Fail government also contributed at least 10 per cent of the entire cost of running the national party.

Fine Gael also received large contributions from these companies: £66,000 from Goodman alone in 1987 and 1988; £20,000 from Agra Trading; £17,500 from Kepak; £16,500 from Hibernia Meats. The Progressive Democrats got £20,000 from Goodman in 1987. There is no reason to suppose that sums of this order or greater are not still pouring into the coffers of the same parties.

THE Electoral Act has been delayed by the McKenna judgment in the Supreme Court and we don't yet know what its final shape will be. But all the indications are that it will continue to allow large private donations to political parties, subject only to a provision that, above a certain level, they will have to be declared.

If this happens it will be, if anything, a step backwards. At the moment, at least in theory, political contributions are not disclosed, even to party members and office holders.

Pat Farrell, Fianna Fail general secretary, has argued that this confidentiality "plays a vital role in ensuring that the making of political contributions cannot result or be portrayed as resulting in political favouritism".

Conversely, if the contributions are declared openly, then Ministers will know that certain companies and individuals have displayed exceptional national spirit in answering the party's call.

In what way is that a reform? Large political contributions must be outlawed and political parties must be funded, in a careful and accountable way, by the State. That funding should cover legitimate political activities: research and presentation of policies, efficient administration of party structures, effective representation of voters.

As for the other, more expensive activities - buying balloons and funny hats, littering the streets with posters, hiring bad jazz bands, grooming TDs to say "I'm glad you asked me that, David" - democracy would be much the better for their passing.