Haughey – from fiasco to farce

The year 1982 was "plagued by scandal", threats to democracy, fear and loathing, according to Part III of the Haughey series. The reality is the "scandals" were wildly exaggerated, there was open treachery within Fianna Fáil and the Haughey government promised economic rescue, five years before it happened. By Vincent Browne

The "Scandals"

Martin O'Donoghue, the old anti-Haughey reliable, was on screen at the start of the third in the Haughey series saying Haughey represented a "threat to democracy" (no explanation then or later or ever of how this could be substantiated).

"Grown men were terrified by (Haughey)," Geraldine Kennedy said. But who were they? (There can't be problems with revealing sources a quarter of a century later.) Terrified of what? Terrified of whom? The questions were allowed to hang.

Ben Briscoe said: "I did feel intimidated, I did feel afraid." But why did he feel intimidated? Of whom did he feel afraid?

Charlie McCreevy said: "People rang the house to say you will be knocked off coming down the dual carriageway." "People" – more than one person? Did McCreevy thank his informant for the advance notice? Did he laugh?

"My home was under surveillance," Des O'Malley said. How did he know? By whom? Why would anybody have put his house under surveillance? To see George Colley, Martin O'Donoghue, Seamus Brennan and the other conspirators gather there? But didn't everyone know at the time that this is what they were up to, so what would have been the point of surveillance?

It got worse

"Some people in the army were worried," someone said. Worried about what? A coup d'état? Not getting a pay rise? Shouldn't we be told? If it was a coup d'état, shouldn't there be evidence? And how could there be a coup d'état if the army or a section of the army was not lined up? The weasel insinuation was left sitting there without challenge, without verification, without a whit of evidence.

Then the spectacular: the discovery of a murderer, Arthur McArthur, in the home of the then Attorney General, Patrick Connolly. If it were the case that the Attorney General was knowingly harbouring a murderer – that certainly would have been a scandal. But manifestly this was not so. So where's the scandal?

That Patrick Connolly flew off on holiday to America after the discovery of McArthur in his apartment was hardly a scandal. Bad judgment certainly, but a scandal? And where is the proof that Haughey sanctioned his holiday in America? My recollection is that he did not and was surprised Patrick Connolly took off.

If there was a scandal about this, it was that Patrick Connolly was forced by Haughey to resign as Attorney General. He had done nothing wrong and even the bad judgment in going off to America hardly disqualified him as Attorney General.

Martin O'Donoghue again. "People who posed any threat (to Haughey) had to be dealt with, whatever it took." Isn't that addendum "whatever it took" interesting? What did he mean? Deportation? Castration? Murder? Shouldn't we be told?

Odd then that Martin O'Donoghue, whose visceral hatred of Haughey was well known at the time, was not dealt with, let alone with "whatever it took". He was brought back into the cabinet as Minister for Education in the immediate aftermath of that blatant act of treachery in February 1982, when the conspiracy to upend Haughey was planned by O'Donoghue, O'Malley and others. And, by the way, O'Malley too was "dealt with" by being appointed to the cabinet once more.

Martin O'Donoghue was later back talking about how corrupt Haughey was/is. This was in the context of 1982, by way, presumably, of an explanation for the treachery that was than afoot in Fianna Fáil (see below). What corruption? Certainly none that O' Donoghue or the cabal of which he was a member knew of. As an ex-post facto justification for persistent treachery, O' Donoghue said the acceptance of large amounts of money from wealthy people was corrupt, whether favour was done for this or not. Really?

What then of Martin O Donoghue's new infatuation, the Progressive Democrats? Where did they get the loads of cash that poured into their coffers from 1985 to1987? How is it corrupt for a politician to take loads of cash from rich people and not corrupt for a political party to take loads of cash from rich people?

Anyway, how about that taped conversation between Martin O'Donoghue and Ray McSharry on 22 October 1982? McSharry said he had heard of a suggestion that he was being offered, or should be offered, a large amount of money. O'Donoghue said: "What was being said was if there was any suggestion of somebody being compromised financially that it would be sorted out".

What was that about? Certainly it left itself open to the construction that if McSharry was in financial difficulty then finance could be organised for him. Such a suggestion was made in the context of a conversation in which O'Donoghue was urging McSharry to move against Haughey – this was just a week or so after Haughey had again secured the backing of a large majority of the party.

This has never been explained adequately and it is disappointing the makers of the programme did not quiz O'Donoghue about this.

But then in that taped conversation, O'Donoghue went on to make the following remark: "But the money I think I heard about around town was that the boss (Haughey) was in financial trouble and certainly again if that was one of the problems it would be better to organise some way of financing it".

So according to O'Donoghue in October 1982, if Haughey was in financial difficulty it would be "better" to organise "some way of financing it". But isn't that precisely what Haughey did that O'Donoghue now finds corrupt?

And another matter: the battering of Jim Gibbons after the October 1982 "heave" against Haughey. Martin O'Donoghue was on saying how menacing this was, how awful – presumably this fed into the "threat to democracy claim". By the way, I thought it was awful and indefensible. But Martin O'Donoghue thinking this was scandalous? In that taped conversation of 21 October 1982 between Ray McSharry and Martin O'Donoghue, McSharry makes reference to that incident: "the deadly stupid scene that took place in the rear of Leinster House that night". O'Donoghue's response: "I would not worry about that."!

So he "would not worry about that" in October 1982 but when the very same incident can be used against Haughey, now it is wheeled out? Pity that was not put to him either.

The phone taps

It was in the context of the grotesque, unprecedented, unpredictable, bizarre conspiracy against a party leader (see below), never seen before or since in Irish politics (not even the gross disloyalty shown by Garret FitzGerald, Tom O'Higgins and others towards Liam Cosgrave in Fine Gael in late 1972 – oh but that's different!), that the telephone taps on the phones of Bruce Arnold and Geraldine Kennedy was undertaken. The telephone taps were wrong, but how wrong? Other journalists' phones were tapped, journalists who were not involved in crime or subversion and tapped for far longer periods by other Ministers for Justice, at least two of them in Fine Gael and one who served under Jack Lynch. So why was the tapping of the telephones of Geraldine Kennedy and Bruce Arnold so uniquely outrageous?

Michael Noonan, Minister for Justice in 1983 when the Arnold/Kennedy taps came to light, said the tapping was done without the usual checks and balances. What checks and balances? Or was it okay if a garda asked a minister to authorise a phone tap and the minister went along with it, whatever the reason, and not okay if it was vice versa? Is that the point, the checks and balances?

Treachery

Remember the song and dance there was made of Haughey's alleged treachery against Jack Lynch, how, allegedly, he tried to destabilise Jack Lynch from 1977 to 1979, by winding up the backbenchers? And that treacherous 1916 speech in October 1979 when Jack Lynch was in America?

No evidence at all that Jack Lynch was destabilised by anything Charley Haughey did then. That 1916 speech was a damp squib, full of the usual banalities about Padraig Pearse. Jack Lynch had decided long before he was going in 1979 – Martin O'Donoghue is the source for that – and, in interviews with me in October 1979, Jack Lynch made it clear he was going soon and it had nothing whatsoever to do with Charlie Haughey or backbenchers. (Those interviews were in connection with his life story which was published in Magill magazine in November 1979.)

Jack Lynch may have brought forward his resignation by a week or so because of unrest among backbenchers but that unrest had to do entirely with how he, George Colley and Martin O'Donoghue were making a mess of things. But nonetheless a major issue was made of Charlie Haughey's disloyalty to Jack Lynch.

Look at what happened when Charlie Haughey himself became leader. Within days George Colley was announcing he was withholding loyalty and, according to people who worked with him in the Department of Energy to which Haughey appointed him in December 1979, he was obstructive throughout the period between then and July 1981 when Fianna Fáil went out of office.

Then in February 1982, after Fianna Fáil had done spectacularly well at the polls (see below) but had failed to secure an overall majority of seats, there was an attempted coup within the party to prevent him becoming Taoiseach. That coup attempt fell on its face but then, in October 1982, in the absence of any objective justification, there was a further coup attempt, this time instigated by Charlie McCreevy but supported by Colley, O'Malley and O'Donoghue.

Never before or since was a Fianna Fáil leader subjected to such treachery and instead of getting his own back on his opponents, Haughey – probably mistakenly – again and again tried to mollify them with office.

Not once does it seem to have occurred to any of these the double standards involved in complaining about Haughey's supposed disloyalty to Jack Lynch and their open and relentless attempts to undermine Haughey. That they were defeated again and again in party votes never deterred them.

For instance, when this faction made a mess of the challenge in February 1982 and Haughey was unanimously endorsed as the party's nominee for Taoiseach, Charlie McCreevy says he said: "Next time, I will do it myself". Now isn't that interesting?

"Next time". The party had unanimously endorsed Haughey's candidature for Taoiseach in the vote about to be taken in the Dail, and McCreevy was speaking of yet another challenge to Haughey's leadership. Some respect for party democracy!

Then the McCreevy would-be putsch in October 1982. What was that about? McCreevy said he was concerned about Fianna Fáil's failure to secure an overall majority since Haughey had come to power and concerned about the management of the economy. Let's look at the record.

Haughey's electoral appeal

There is some irony to McCreevy's complaint about Haughey's electoral appeal. It is true that Fianna Fáil under Jack Lynch had won 50.6 per cent of first preference votes but Fianna Fáil support had collapsed over the following two years and in June 1979 in the European elections it was down to 34.7 per cent. Fianna Fáil recovered to 45.3 per cent in the 1981 election, which was a considerable achievement for Charles Haughey. By a freak of the electoral system however, he lost power. Had the party won 94 more votes in Wexford and 166 more votes in Dublin North, he would have been back as Taoiseach.

But eight months later, in February 1982, he led Fianna Fáil to winning its six highest votes in its history, a level never attained since then – 47.3 per cent. Again, because of a freak in the electoral system, he failed to get an overall majority.

Under Haughey, Fianna Fáil attained the following first preference percentages:

• 1981: 45.3

• 1982 (Feb): 47.3

• 1987: 45.2

• 1989: 44.2

Since Haughey Fianna Fáil has attained the following percentages:

• 1992: 39.1

• 1997: 39.3

• 2002: 41.5

Lack of electoral appeal? Fianna Fáil under Haughey had won 47.5 per cent of the first preference votes in February 1982, after which McCreevy was worried about Haughey's electoral appeal.

Martin O'Donoghue's main refrain in that taped conversation with McSharry in October 1982 was all about Haughey's unelectability. When McCreevy's champion, Albert Reynolds, fought his first election, Fianna Fáil lost over a tenth of its vote share. Even after five years of McCreevy's stewardship of the economy and faced with a shattered opposition, Fianna Fáil could get only 41.5 per cent of the vote, well below Haughey's worst performance ever. Why wasn't this put to McCreevy?

Haughey and the economy 1982

McCreevy's complaint about Haughey's management of the economy in September/October 1982 was disingenuous and it is a pity the programme did not show that. McCreevy, contrary to his own blather, was one of the most ardent admirers of the reckless 1977 Fianna Fáil manifesto and the subsequent public expenditure and borrowing splurges in 1977-79. Haughey failed to come to grips with this before the 1981 election but in 1982 he was certainly doing that.

In July 1982 Ray McSharry, then Minister for Finance, announced a series of restrictive measures to cut back on public expenditure and borrowing. Over the following few months a strategy was prepared largely in the Taoiseach's Department resulting in the programme, 'The Way Forward' published in October 1982. This set out to correct the economic chaos left by the Lynch-O'Donoghue-O'Malley-Colley cabal. It announced cuts in public expenditure, both current and capital, and projected a phasing out of the current budget deficit by 1987.

In other words, precisely what McCreevy was saying by then (he had changed his tune) was that what was necessary was being done. So what was the heave against Haughey about in October 1982? O'Donoghue and O'Malley left the cabinet in October 1982 because they refused to express their loyalty to Haughey in the leadership challenge; this (ie the demand for loyalty) they and their advocates portray as evidence of Haughey's megalomania. But one of their most persistent charges against Haughey had been that he had been disloyal to Jack Lynch, without there being any hard evidence that he was.

The fact is that Haughey was on the verge of giving the best government the country had known for a long time and far better than anything that succeeded it.

What happened subsequently was this. Haughey's government lost office in November 1982 and the Fine Gael-Labour ion came into office under Garret FitzGerald. Garret was advised by officials in his department that 'The Way Forward' was then the product of civil servants and he was urged to go along with it, not least because Fianna Fáil would be required to support the plan they had endorsed in government. Garret knew better. He set up another task force that took over a year to draft a plan for the new government, which differed hardly at all from 'The way Forward' and he had then lost the political momentum to carry it through.

So the conventional wisdom on those times, which was lazily adopted by the programme, was fabulously wrong. Far from being a scandal-plagued, reckless, incompetent government, it had the potential to be one of the best and a pity it was that it was not allowed to continue in office.

Of course the poor would have paid for the cuts, but that is the nature of our political orthodoxy and the poor paid anyway and paid even more for the hard decisions were deferred.

Of course, Sean Doherty was a disastrous choice as Minister for Justice and there was the continuing treachery of the O' Malley-O'Donoghue faction. But O'Malley and O'Donoghue could have been gotten rid of once that government had found its feet, or they could have been "co-opted" – after all O'Malley willingly went into government with Haughey seven years later. Doherty could have been relied on to get rid of himself. p

Next week:

The Moriarty Tribunal and Haughey's legacy