A life full of colour … and controversy
Charles Haughey, the flamboyant Taoiseach whose personal chemistry with Margaret Thatcher helped bring about a thaw in Anglo-Irish relationships, died today. ALF McCREARY reflects on his turbulent life
13 June 2006
Charles Huaghey served as Taoiseach of the Republic on three separate occasions and was one of the most controversial politicians of his generation.
Despite attempts to build contacts with Unionists, he earned their undying opposition because of his strongly republican policies and particularly for his pointed observation that Northern Ireland was “a failed political entity.”
Charles James Haughey, who was born in Co Mayo in September 1925, came from a family with Swatragh connections, and his father was second-in-command of the Northern division of the old IRA.
He became a member of Fianna Fail in the late 1940s, and in 1951 joined an influential political family in the republic when he married Maureen, the daughter of Sean Lemass, who himself had a distinguished career as Taoiseach.
It was Lemass’ controversial meeting at Stormont with Captain Terence O’Neill, leader of the Ulster Unionists, which sparked off political upheaval in the late Sixties and which was one of the factors that led inexorably to the fragmentation and demise of mainstream unionism.
Charles Haughey was elected to the Dail in 1957 and quickly demonstrated his political ability as Minister for Justice and later Agriculture.
His promising career was almost destroyed, however, by developments in the early years of the Troubles, and when in 1970 he was among those at the centre of gun-running allegations in the Republic.
He was sacked by his party leader and Taoiseach Jack Lynch, and was later charged with conspiracy to import arms and ammunition illegally.
He was acquitted, with three others, and made a remarkable political comeback. He was later appointed Health Minister, and succeeded Jack Lynch as Taoiseach in 1979, but with a deeply divided parliamentary party.
He denounced the Provisional IRA and declared his support for a peaceful reunification of Ireland.
He worked with successive British administrations during his three terms as Taoiseach-from December 1979-June 1981, from March-December 1982 and from March 1987-February 1992.
Despite his tough republican stance he developed a certain rapport with the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to whom he once famously gave valuable antique silver - but this relationship cooled considerably because of, among other things, his strong opposition to the Falklands War.
Despite his hawkish stance on the North, Haughey privately attempted to build up important contacts with unionists and other Protestant leaders.
He had several private meetings with, for example, the Church of Ireland Primate Archbishop Robin Eames who conveyed to him the realities of the Northern Protestant view.
Eames found him a cultured man, who had made a significant contribution to the life of the arts in the Republic, but he concluded: “Of all the Taoiseachs I met, he was the hardest to predict. I never felt totally at ease with him, and I still don’t know why.”
That view would be echoed by most, if not all, unionists.
It would be wrong to conclude, however, that Haughey’s approach to the North was entirely negative, but it was left to other Taoiseachs to achieve more significant progress, and most notably his party opponent and successor Albert Reynolds.
Though of moderate physcial stature, Haughey had a commanding presence and his colourful lifestyle and personal intrigues provided good copy for generations of writers and political commentators.
Controversy was never far away and it emerged that he had received a huge sum in donations from a leading Dublin businessman.
His lifestyle, which included a private island off the Irish coast, seemed excessive for the income of a senior politician, even a Prime Minister, but the Byzantine details - including his considerable tax liabilities - began to unravel only in the years after his active political life ended.
Once regarded as a kind of dubious folk hero and “a bit of a
character” his popularity also waned, and only his ill-health and age prevented him from paying full retribution in the courts and elsewhere for his excesses.
History may or may not judge him kindly, but few political leaders have provided a more colourful story.
