Cowen's deferential mindset all too typical

Brian Cowen is a man of integrity, but he was unable to question this society's sacred cows. All our parties and their leaders have this flaw, writes Vincent Browne.

Brian Cowen does not, and did not, lack integrity. Neither does he lack very considerable abilities. It is entirely credible that everything he did in public office he did in the interests of the country, as he perceived those interests.

He might be criticised for not always bringing those considerable abilities to the job in hand and, where justifiably criticised for so failing, his reaction was probably reflecting a culture of masculinity here that afflicts many.

Brian Cowen's deficiencies, in my view, were his politics. Not the Fianna Fáil thing but the mindset thing. In that respect, he shares that deficiency (as I see it) with almost all politicians in the establishment parties, among whom, incidentally, I include the Labour Party. The mindset is fixed on the idea that there are certain immutables in our lives and in our societies, certain deferences that are unavoidable.

Among the more pernicious of these immutables are that we cannot afford to defy the might of finance, or the free markets; that the only incentive is financial incentive; that ideas about equality are off the wall because of their unreality; that huge disparities of income and wealth are inevitable and, ultimately, acceptable; that one cannot trust the people with the major decisions of state because the people are uninformed and, for the most part, uninterested; that there are gradations of status in society and properly so.

I think the best initial example of this mindset in the case of Cowen was in his response to representations from the stockbroking community to a decision of the Revenue Commissioners to impose a tiny stamp duty charge on contracts for difference (contracts between parties whereby the buyer will pay the seller the difference between the price of a share at the time of the contract and its value at a stipulated future time).

Contracts for difference essentially are about buying shares and there is no reason to treat them differently. But when the stockbrokers kicked up a hullabaloo about the minor stamp duty imposition, Brian Cowen backed off smartly and ordered the Revenue Commissioners to do likewise.

I am sure he did not do this because of any improper motive, rather because he believed the Irish State can't take on the "money boys". It was the same mentality that propelled an anxious John Bruton in 1985, when as Minister for Industry and Commerce, he urged Garret FitzGerald and Alan Dukes (then Taoiseach and Minister for Finance respectively) to capitulate to the demands of AIB over the impending collapse of a subsidiary. Nobody, rightly, has suspected any of these did anything in their public duties for improper motives.

Unfortunately, that same mindset came to bear at the time of the banking crisis in 2008, although there are aspects to that which remain inexplicable – principally how Cowen did not know this was coming since there were warning signs all over the place, including in the Department of Finance. On the night of the guarantee, 29 September, 2008, the predominant thought in his mind and in that of Brian Lenihan was to defend the mighty banks, at whatever the cost.

There is no suggestion or (at least in my mind) suspicion that any improper motive was involved. It was the wrong mindset that was the problem.

And so it was in November over the EU-IMF rescue package, prompted, it is now clear, by the ECB, which was scared about the amount of support it had been giving to the Irish banks over the previous months during which time there had been a massive drain of deposits (there is a very interesting analysis on this by Gary O'Callaghan, now at Dubrovnik International University and formerly of UCC and the IMF, "Did the ECB Cause a Run on Irish Banks?" – this is accessible via the blog irisheconomy.ie). The objective was to foist the full cost of the crisis in the Irish banks on the Irish public, lest the ECB itself and banks in the EU be afflicted.

There is some evidence that Lenihan tried to resist this but ultimately he and Cowen capitulated and the "rescue" package came into being, which, incidentally, makes a bit of a nonsense of our belief that we are now engaged in "free" elections. Once again, it seems, it was deference, deference to the "big boys" of Europe.

There is much talk on the part of Fine Gael and Labour about negotiating changes to this deal, but neither has even hinted they would go to the ECB and say Ireland is not prepared to bear the cost of the bank rescue. Deference persists.

Neither are any of the establishment parties committed to diminishing significantly the scale of inequality here. None of the parties want to give the people a direct say on major decisions, aside via the crude mechanism of a general election and contrived consultation processes.

They are all Brian Cowens, but not many with his abilities, his humour and his scorn for affectation and pretence.