Mrs Maire Geoghegan Quinn's decision to step down from politics will be a loss to the incoming Dail, to Fianna Fail and to public life in general. Other TDs have indicated their intentions not to contest their seats in the 28th Dail. Each will represent a loss of experience. But few will match her sheer ability, her experience, her strength and her judgment. At 46 she is a relatively young woman with the potential, if she is so mindful, of exploring new challenges and establishing a new career. Yet she has put in 20 years in Dail Eireann and a few more before that in active local politics. And few avocations can be more draining and more likely to make a man or woman tired before their time. At a point where many careers are about to hit their highs, a politician may feel that he or she has been burned out.
Maire Geoghegan Quinn is far from burned out. But she acknowledges that the pressures - and in particular the pressures on her private life - have been considerable. Many women with careers outside the home will empathise and will recognise that she is sacrificing her public role for the sake of her private life. Some will support that choice. Others will not. And it will be observed by some that the Dail pension scheme softens the financial impact of staying at home. It is something of a parable of our times.
In her statement announcing her intention to stand down, Mrs Geoghegan Quinn referred critically to the increasing tendency of the media to report on matters concerning politicians families and private lives. It appears that newspaper reportage of a school incident involving her son added to the stresses of her situation. The coverage of a relatively trivial incident in the young man's school came on the heels of the Michael Lowry affair and just before a Sunday newspaper conducted a poll among politicians, seeking to ascertain if they had availed of the tax amnesty.
To describe the politicians as sensitive at this time would be a considerable understatement. There is widespread anger at what they regard as the demonising of their profession by the media and a deep resentment at what they consider a growing intrusion into their personal affairs.
These are not clear cut issues. By and large politicians - and other public figures - have had a tolerant and discreet press in this country. The conventions which have applied here are in happy contrast to the situation in Britain, for example. Sexual irregularities or a fondness for alcohol are generally regarded as private matters as long as they are not seen to influence public duties. But it is not unreasonable to ask anyone who is paid from the public purse if they have availed of an amnesty for those who failed to meet their obligations to the Exchequer.
Is it right or wrong for a newspaper to report a disturbance in a school because a prominent public figure's son is involved? It seems a trivial affair and yet it may depend on how it is reported. And those now rounding on "the media" might have the grace to recognise that not all newspapers took the view that this was a matter of legitimate public interest. The offspring of public figures may enjoy some benefits from the circumstances of their birth and upbringing. There can be a downside to it as well, as in this case But it is certainly healthier to have an incident reported in spite of a public figure's son being involved rather than to have it suppressed - as once it might have been - precisely for that reason.