MICHAEL McDowell clearly does his best thinking at night. In March of last year, he went home to sleep on the thorny issue of what to do about Olukunle Elukanlo, the Leaving Cert student who had been deported to Nigeria. The day before, he had rounded on his critics in characteristic style, accusing them of "running to the media with gross exaggerations or misinformation", and indicating there would be no turning back. But after considering the matter overnight, a slightly sheepish McDowell told the media he had made a mistake and that the original decision had been "a little bit harsh".
Last Monday, the minister endured another sleepness night. Earlier that day, McDowell had very publicly lost it. Addressing journalists outside Buswells Hotel, across the road from Leinster House, he compared Richard Bruton . . . one of the most even-tempered and polite members of the Dail . . . to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.
Typically, he said he would not be withdrawing the comments but after spending a restless night deliberating on the matter, McDowell went onMorning Ireland the next day to apologise for "playing the man, not the ball". The minister then buttressed the apology by shaking hands with Bruton in the Dail chamber. By this stage, he was in full damage limitation mode. And he needed to be.
His outburst the previous day had been an unmitigated public relations disaster. As TV performances go, it was up there with Kevin Keegan's infamous "I'd love it if we beat them, love it" emotional outburst at Alex Ferguson as he watched his Newcastle team throw away the league title to Manchester United.
The ability to keep one's temper under control is a key ministerial competence, yet McDowell inexplicably lost his cool over an issue that would hardly have registered in the public consciousness. The target of his assault was all the more bewildering. Bruton is hugely respected by all sides in the Dail as a serious political operator, but his skills do not lie in the area of propaganda or manipulating the media. For McDowell . . . no mean propagandist himself . . . to suggest otherwise was ludicrous.
Inevitably, the old questions about his judgement resurfaced. "Scary" was the word used by one close observer to describe the minister's performance. "There was no balance button. For someone in charge of the security organs of the state to be that irrational about damn-all. It shows a lack of judgement.
It's one thing showing that inside the government, but to exhibit it in public is something else."
PR expert Terry Prone says McDowell's reaction was untypical and "completely and bizarrely disproportionate", adding: "nobody in politics should ever liken anyone to a Nazi or somebody involved in the Holocaust. It's one of those areas you just don't go."
Nor did it help that the outburst followed extraordinary comments earlier this month, when McDowell appeared to draw a link between the Green Party and those involved in the recent Dublin riots . . . comments that he also withdrew on Tuesday. "Two apologies in the one day was one too many, " one government figure ruefully commented.
Overall, the image presented last week was of a politician who couldn't bear to be questioned and who not only had to win every argument, but to be seen to win every argument. "The figures prove that I'm right and he's wrong, " he petulantly declared on RTE'sSixOne news. Prone says that if she was asked to advise McDowell, she would counsel him that the object of the exercise is to "score a goal, it isn't necessary to kick the lining out of the goalkeeper as well."
She also notes that while McDowell is very strong at making points when debating . . . for example, climbing up a ladder at the last general election to warn of the dangers of singleparty government . . . he has "never majored on persuasion".
McDowell remains a revered figure among rank-and-file PD members, but there is little doubt that party figures were deeply uneasy about his recent outbursts and the potential damage it could do to the party. While that unease is certainly shared by many within Fianna Fail, he is not without admirers in the larger coalition party.
"Michael McDowell is the best Fianna Fail minister that Fianna Fail never had. He gets things done. He has a view and expresses it and takes no crap from the opposition. He hasn't, like a lot of ministers, become the de-facto secretary general of his department. He gets in early and he stays till late at night. He puts in the hours, " one observer said last week.
Included in the ranks of his admirers is thought to be Bertie Ahern. While he was annoyed at the Ceaucescu jibe in 2002, the Taoiseach understands better than most that it wasn't personal, just business. He respects the justice minister as someone with bottle.
The two men were said to be like "peas in a pod" while McDowell was Attorney General.
But nobody last week was willing to put any kind of positive spin on McDowell's outburst.
"The pictures on TV were worrying. Of all people required to keep their cool, it's the Minister for Justice, " one FF source said.
The normally super-confident McDowell cut a fairly forlorn figure towards the end of the week, yet few in politics believe that the damage will be particularly long-lasting. Mary Harney once got hammered for correctly stating that people forget quickly. And, assuming there is no repeat performance in the near future (a dangerous assumption perhaps), McDowell's outburst will quickly become yesterday's news.
Crucially for McDowell, he is president of a party that only needs to attract 5% of the electorate to be in with a good chance of being in government. He can afford to alienate significant sections of the voting public and still prosper. McDowell will top the poll in Dublin South East at the next general election and, while Liz O'Donnell cannot be discounted, remains the frontrunner to succeed Harney as PD leader.
Even if he learns from last week's mistakes, the reality is that the lustice minister will always be a divisive figure in Irish politics. He probably wouldn't want it any other way and neither, if the truth were known, would we.
|