He was given the benefit of the doubt for taking money from friends in Dublin in 1992 and 1993 to settle debts arising from his marital separation. But if he had been a public representative in most other European countries he would have been forced out of office over revelations that as finance minister he went to Manchester in 1993 and took home £8,000 sterling in cash from people he could not remember.

Ahern benefited from a poor opposition and also a public with a low expectation of the ethical standards required from the holders of public office in this republic. For the latter, Ahern had his old mentor, Charles Haughey, to thank.

The grubby whipround in Manchester - while wrong - was deemed by the public not to be of sufficient seriousness to warrant removal from office. Pragmatism replaced principle, and for that Haughey shares most of the blame. The scale of his self-enrichment means that for another politician to be found guilty of wrongdoing in the court of public opinion, the offence must be of significant monetary magnitude.

As last week's report of the Moriarty tribunal shows, Haughey was on the take for most of his political career. While it might have been better if the tribunal chairman Michael Moriarty had been forthcoming with his recommendations - they will come in a later report - the content is enough to damn Haughey.

The family of the late taoiseach described several of the tribunal's findings as "perverse" and "the allegations of political corruption or misuse of office as unfounded on the basis of the evidence".

It is, however, difficult to accept such an assessment. Taking just a single example, the report is convincing in its assessment of the facts in relation to the Revenue Commissioners' dealings with Ben Dunne and the tax affairs of the Dunne business. "It is the conclusion of the tribunal that Mr Haughey in return for such payments acted with a view to intervening improperly in a pending tax case of great magnitude, " the report states.

On a personal level this has been a difficult year for the Haughey family and, as Moriarty notes in his report, it is not easy to publish "harsh conclusions" at this time of year. But any sympathy must be negated by the fact that the former taoiseach failed to cooperate with the tribunal. He took money, granted favours and lived an extravagant lifestyle that his own income could not sustain.

The type of politics espoused by Haughey lived on for many years after his resignation in early 1992, as illustrated by the activities of Frank Dunlop, Liam Lawlor and Ray Burke. We are wiser now but much more cynical of our politicians and sadly - primarily because of Haughey - we appear to expect far less from them than we should.