Another Green bites the dust

Another Green bites the dust and the Fianna Fáil machine states in no uncertain terms that it had nothing to do with it. I’m not alone in my suspicions regarding the timing of the revelation that brought Trevor Sargent to the sword but Dermot Ahern and his party colleagues have been adamant that they had nothing to do with it, so let’s accept their assurances and move on.

In moving on, I find myself deeply conflicted. What Trevor Sargent did was wrong because any right-thinking individual would agree that politicians should not be able to influence the independent operation of the police force in Ireland. And yet there is a grey area here, which has perhaps been glossed over to an extent.
Politicians are in a unique position to lobby on behalf of their constituents and, some might say, have a duty to do so. I have known many politicians over the years, who have taken on the causes of their constituents who find themselves in difficult legal situations and fought their corner despite a difference in party politics.
Principle is a powerful motive to those who devote their lives to fighting for it and for those few politicians who do just that, there should be a mechanism through which they can do their duty. I wish to reiterate at this point that I am not defending Trevor Sargent nor condoning what he did but I do defend absolutely, in principle, the right of a politician to fight for the rights of a constituent who has been wronged by the law or any other institution of the State.
If a politician cannot do this then what recourse lies open to a member of the public who finds themselves wronged?
What has brought the Sargent case into sharp focus for me more than anything else is the very interesting case of Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s deputy first minister. The Scottish Parliament member has recently found herself on the political rack because she wrote to a sheriff court on behalf of Abdul Rauf asking for clemency.
The man in question was previously convicted for defrauding the British government out of £80,000, something she described as a “mistake” in her letter. Certainly a grave error of judgement on her part but her explanation gives food for thought.
She said that she had made the representations on behalf of Mr Rauf because he has five children and a heart condition and she feared for his family if a custodial sentence was handed down. “I assisted a constituent in good faith and for what I considered the right reasons but in doing so I did get some things wrong and for that I am sorry.” This was her statement to the Scottish Parliament, where she is second in command in a minority government.
In her defence, the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, delivered a fierce, blustering response. He told the chamber that members of the Scottish Parliament had an “absolute obligation” to represent constituents. He was criticised for his defence as the MSP’s code does allow a member to decline a constituent’s case if there are “legitimate reasons”.
In the end, Nicola Sturgeon survived the calls for her resignation by engaging in a very simple plan – she apologised. In a way absolutely opposite to the stance adopted by her leader, she stood before the house and was contrite and unequivocally apologetic.
The reaction of the opposition was a stunned silence. Calls for her resignation immediately evaporated and she finds herself at the end of the incident a stronger and more respected politician than she was before writing the letter. Leader writers and columnists have been typing reams of print on how refreshing it is to see a politician apologise and not just try to weasel their way out of trouble and the general public seems to have forgiven her for a silly mistake.
At the end of the affair, I find myself wondering why the same did not happen to Trevor Sargent? He entered into his own exercise on behalf of a constituent with no malice and yet he now finds himself on the backbenches. It is clear from his statements after his resignation that he is still deeply concerned for the man in question.
We have had many cases in recent years of politicians who were engaged in far worse activities and yet fought like tigers against calls for them go, chests puffed up by their own belief in their right to hold the position they did.
Certainly, I am not suggesting a return to the wink wink, kicking the back door method of political activity that damaged the country to such an extent in times gone by but perhaps a more balanced approach is required.
Are we to consider every transgression a resigning offence from now on? Could a more clear-cut code of practice be compiled through an all-party consensus? I imagine that such a thing will not happen. At the moment particularly, all parties are wounded animals. The Greens have been exposed as the lap dogs of Fianna Fáil, who themselves are sensing an end to their long grip on power.
The Opposition smell blood and are particularly sore following the flight of George Lee. These are politically bad-tempered times and anyone putting a foot wrong will feel the wrath of their fellow parliamentarians without the faintest trace of mercy.
It will be interesting to see how many more heads will roll in the coming months for whatever reasons, be they serious or trivial. I have no doubt that some will though, as we wind down to the end of this thoroughly bruising Dáil session.
The credit crunch has left the body politic bruised and weary and given birth to a politics in Ireland red in tooth and claw.
An election will revitalise the parties and their foot soldiers and the fog of war will hide their wounds. However, until the next big battle, petty outrage will be the order of the day.