Inside Politics: The pomp and ceremony surrounding the official commemoration of the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Rising has provoked a healthy debate about the past. Since last Sunday, politicians, with the next election uppermost in their minds, have been wondering what impact the intense focus on the violent events of the Easter Rising will have on the future.
The clear intention of the Government in reinstating the military parade through the centre of Dublin, after a lapse of almost 30 years, was to prevent Sinn Féin "hijacking" the anniversary commemorations for it own ends.
Whether the tactic worked will only become clear when the results of the next election are in, but some politicians have their doubts.
On the positive side, the commemorative events last Sunday were sober and dignified. The parade by the Army (Óglaigh na hÉireann) through the centre of the Dublin was an appropriate way of marking one of the most significant events on the road to Irish independence. The minute's silence for all who died during the Rising was an appropriately inclusive gesture.
However, the underlying problem was the official reinstating of the Rising as the sole inspiration of Irish independence, to the exclusion of all other historical events from Catholic Emancipation to the election of the first Dáil. The Taoiseach himself fuelled this interpretation of events in a major speech at the beginning of Easter week.
The 75th anniversary commemoration in 1991 was muted precisely because a more extravagant commemoration would have raised uncomfortable questions about the legitimacy of political violence at a time when the Provisional IRA campaign was still in full swing. Although the PIRA campaign is now over, violent republicanism has not gone away, as the arrest of four men in their bomb factory in Armagh a few days after Easter demonstrated.
This is where the central problem about the commemoration in terms of its impact on contemporary politics arises. Who is likely to benefit politically in the longer-term from the glorification of the role of the gun in Irish politics, Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin or more extreme republican elements who are still intent on wreaking violence on behalf of an unwilling people?
Another, if lesser, problem about the commemoration was that instead of Sinn Féin hijacking the event, it seemed at times that the Taoiseach was intent on hogging the whole thing solely for the benefit of Fianna Fáil.
Mr Ahern's speech, at the opening of the 1916 exhibition at the National Museum on Palm Sunday, was certainly not one of his best.
In that speech the Taoiseach maintained that the four cornerstones of independent Ireland were the Proclamation of 1916, Eamon de Valera's 1937 Constitution, the Treaty of Rome of 1972 and the Good Friday agreement of 1998.
All the documents he mentioned were certainly critical to the development of modern Ireland, but there were a few glaring omissions.
The most obvious one was the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922 which established the independent Irish state. And there were other omissions, the declaration of the Republic in 1948, the Sunningdale Agreement of 1974 and the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985.
The politics behind the inclusions and omissions is quite obvious. Fianna Fáil is associated with the four events listed by the Taoiseach, while the other four are linked to Fine Gael. The attempt to manipulate history for party political advantage was so blatant it was laughable, but it dented the credibility of the week's events.
When it came to the parade on Easter Sunday the irony was that, far from attempting to hijack it, Sinn Féin actually engaged in a semi-boycott of the event.
All the political leaders of nationalist Ireland from the President to the Taoiseach, from the Fine Gael leader to the leader of the SDLP were there.
The British Ambassador also attended and the military attaché at the British embassy gave a smart salute when the Proclamation was read.
However, there was no sign of Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness or the Sinn Féin leader in the Dáil, Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin. Arthur Morgan the party's Louth TD was there and so was SeáCrowe from Dublin South West, but the absence of the party's top brass was a deliberate tactic.
It seems that while the "war" may be over, the party still has a problem recognising the institutions of the Irish State, particularly the Army.
Sinn Féin staged its own parade down O'Connell Street, to hear an address by Gerry Adams outside the GPO, on the day before the official commemoration. The sinister get-up of many of the marchers in their combat fatigues, black berets and dark glasses probably did more harm than good, in terms of impressing the Saturday afternoon crowd in town.
It is difficult to believe that this image will help the party when it comes to election time, but it is an indication that old habits die hard.
As Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin competed with each other for ownership of 1916, the other major parties did not seem sure whether to embrace the event or keep their distance.
Enda Kenny complained about the Taoiseach's selective version of history, but was happy to endorse last Sunday's commemoration. Pat Rabbitte congratulated the Army for its display but said it was too early to make a judgment about the long-term impact.
It is not clear whether or not the Easter Sunday parade will be an annual event or whether the next big commemoration will be left until the 100th anniversary. Given the likely proximity of the general election to next Easter, the chances are that any major event next year would become an even bigger political football. All things considered, it might be wise to leave the next big formal commemoration until 2016.