The transformation of the country from unemployment and emigration-ridden basket case to one of Europe's richest countries has been staggering. Our oft-maligned politicians deserve enormous credit for the role they played in that turnaround.

It's just when you take three Dail sitting days like last week in isolation and witness the common good being completely sacrificed at the expense of narrow vested interests and blatant political expediency, it's difficult to credit how they managed it.

The fare served up on the main issues of the week . . . the proposed sale of the Great Southern Hotels group, the Sea Fisheries and Marine Jurisdiction Bill and EU Nitrates Directive . . . was utterly depressing. The national interest, not to mention common sense, was tossed out the window, as politicians fell over each other to shore up their local constituencies.

Michael D Higgins of Labour . . . a politician who has generally done the state some service . . . released a statement saying that the sale of the Great Southern Hotel Group would be "a disaster, not just for the hotel group, but [wait for it] the entire tourism industry".

Quite a claim. Forget high prices, a weak dollar, bungalow blitz, inclement weather and fierce international competition, the real crisis facing the (booming) tourism sector is, apparently, the sale of nine state-owned, loss-making hotels. It is hardly coincidental that both Higgins and his colleague Breeda Moynihan-Cronin . . .

who described the proposed sale as "shameful" . . .represent constituencies with Great Southern hotels.

Higgins' further claim that the government decision was "ideologically driven" is just plain silly. The workers in the group, understandably, are worried about their future and their concerns must be addressed. But the harsh reality is the Great Southern is losing millions every year and its directors said they would not be able to sign off on the 2005 accounts without clarification about the future of the hotels. They took the decision that the group should be sold to protect the board from the accusation that they were engaging in reckless trading.

The question Labour should be asking is why did the government wait for the hotel's financial state to reach such crisis proportions before acting, not engaging in political rhetoric that went out with the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

Ironically, on the same day, there were reports in the media that a shopping centre, near the tourist town of Kenmare, Co Kerry had been granted planning permission by An Bord Pleanala even though the board's inspector advised against it. The inspector had expressed reservations about the "presentation of the development at the edge of a heritage town of considerable importance to the tourist market in Kerry".

Predictably, there wasn't a peep out of anyone in the Dail about an issue that is far more fundamental to the future health of our tourism sector than the ownership of a few hotels.

If anything, the fisheries debate on Thursday was even more dispiriting.

Politicians from across the house (the PDs and the Greens being honourable exceptions) queued up to attack minister Noel Dempsey for having the audacity to introduce a bill designed to protect Irish fish stocks with a range of penalties for illegal fishing.

Dempsey, a seemingly rare example of a politician striving to do the right, rather than the populist, thing was a light in the darkness last week. He bluntly told the Dail that there was "organised criminality" by a minority in the Irish fishing industry and that he would not expose the taxpayer to potentially massive EU fines by not dealing with this. He called on deputies to support his "tough but fair" legislation "in the national interest".

Alas, self-interest was the order of the day. Deputies from coastal constituencies, including those from Fianna Fail, thundered against the bill, while at the same time failing to offer any plausible arguments against it other than the risible claim that Dempsey was defaming the whole fishing industry.

Sinn Fein's Martin Ferris claimed deputies were taking "a principled stand" in their opposition to the bill.

Some coincidence then that every one of those TDs was from a maritime constituency.

By any logic, the Sea Fisheries bill is necessary and just, but the bottom line is that there are no votes in supporting Dempsey's stand, but potentially plenty by opposing it.

A clear comparison can be drawn between that row and the furore over the proposed introduction of an EU nitrates directive, which will limit the amount of fertiliser farmers put on their lands.

One-fifth of all ground water in the state has nitrate concentrations above EU limits, but because of the strength of the farming lobby successive governments took no action.

Now because of the threat of massive EU fines (sound familiar? ), the government has reluctantly introduced regulations on stocking levels and the storage and spreading of animal waste.

This is being bitterly opposed by the IFA, who claim the plan is too strict. And, once again, it is possible to count on one hand the politicians putting the emphasis on the greater public good, rather than the farming lobby.

Perhaps, it is unfair to blame politicians. The harsh political reality is that they simply cannot afford to ignore the claims of powerful vested interests, particularly when the members of these groups are concentrated in their constituency.

Maybe the criticism should be focused on our PRbased electoral system. We have always smugly assumed that our system is more proportional, and therefore more democratic, than the UK first-past-thepost system. It is more proportional, but is it more democratic? With constituencies, and even entire general elections, often decided by a handful of votes, our system arguably gives disproportionate influence to well-organised and highly-vocal minorities.

No disrespect to the staff of Great Southern but surely there are much bigger issues for our national parliament to address. Could anyone seriously imagine Tony Blair, for example, facing a grilling in the House of Commons over the ownership of nine hotels? And is it democratic, for example, that the constituencies of four independent deputies fared particularly well between 1997 and 2002 because the government was dependent on their support to stay in power?

How democratic is it also that electoral considerations mean that it is often only the threat of censure from bureaucrats in Brussels that forces our government to do the right thing on issues such as deregulation, ending of the Shannon Stopover, environmental protections, telecoms competition, etc?

All of which leads to the question: who is acting on behalf of the average punter, the person who is not in the public sector or a strong union or working in an industry with a powerful lobby group? If last week's Dail farce is anything to go by, the answer is nobody.