One of the curious aspects of the first week of the McCracken tribunal has been the almost palpable air of public acceptance which has greeted its revelations. There has been predictably gossipy interest in what the witnesses have had to say. But there is little surprise or outrage at any of the substance.
Public sensitivities may been have been partially numbed by successive controversies; Greencore, Telecom, beef, and by reports of lucrative deals and "golden circles". It may be that John Citizen has been mesmerised by allegations, denials and inquiries which have run into the sand. Thus, a cynical I told you so wisdom has greeted most of the evidence presented in Dublin Castle during the week.
The Taoiseach, Mr Bruton, may or may not be correct when he declares that what has been described could not happen again. Legislation in place or in train will ensure future transparency. And Mr Charles Haughey, the subject of the most serious allegations at the tribunal, is now retired from public life. What happened in the past is past, some will say. The country is doing well. Is it important that we know how Mr Haughey handled his overdraft a decade ago?
It would be difficult to nominate anything which could be more important. For better or worse, Mr Haughey set the political agenda of this State for perhaps 20 years. His imprint is there in today's economy, in our role in Europe, in the national question, in the arts. Much of what is good about Ireland in 1997 stands to Mr Haughey's credit, in particular his dynamic management of the economy. Virtually every public institution, and a great many people, owe their fortunes (or lack of them) to Charles Haughey. Mr Haughey, more than any other Taoiseach since Eamon de Valera, might have justifiably borrowed the aphorism of Louis XIV l'Etat, c'est moi; I am the State.
If the evidence given by Mr Ben Dunne is correct, Mr Haughey was a kept man. The Gandon mansion, the island, the yacht, the paintings and objects d'art were not sustainable on his known income or accumulated wealth. He needed cash from the head of one of the country's largest grocery chains to make ends meet. And if he needed £1.3 million from Mr Dunne in 1987, one must ask did he need other sums from other people at other times? If so, who were they and what did they give? And can we afford to make the comfortably safe assumption that they would all have acted as Mr Dunne declares he did in handing over their subscriptions with no strings attached?
Mr Dunne's evidence and it has been corroborated in considerable degree by other witnesses depicts a scenario which is in equal measures both pathetic and sinister. Yet, so far Mr Haughey has chosen not to answer the charges which have been made and which, if unanswered, will stand at the bar of history. Fair minded individuals would not be willing to make up their minds without hearing his side of the story. Mr Dunne, after all, has had at least one colourful interlude in his life to cast doubt over his reliability in conditions of stress.
He has, nevertheless, given his testimony under oath. And if Mr Haughey refuses to testify on his own behalf the tribunal may have little option but to find that Mr Dunne's version stands. The tribunal's only course, if he refuses to answer its summons, is to refer his case to the DPP for prosecution. Ultimately, he can be made to pay a penalty but he cannot be compelled to break his silence. Mr Haughey owes it to Fianna Fail to answer up, says his former colleague Ms Maire Geoghegan Quinn in her column in this newspaper this morning. He also owes it, perhaps, to his own reputation. Facing up to the music however unpleasant - would benefit him more in history's esteem than holding a sullen silence.