Madam, - Many political commentators seem to rejoice in - or at least see nothing wrong with - a situation in which one political party is continuously in power. Even more alarming, much political debate seems to consist of taunting the losers and trying to undermine the credibility of the opposition leaders.
A good example of this attitude could be seen in your Letters columns recently. The leaders of the parties which had the temerity to put forward an alternative government in the recent election were severely denounced by three of your correspondents. On July 18th, Opposition leaders were variously labelled by David Carroll, Declan Harmon and Michael Anderson as suffering a "stunning rejection", "losing a sixth election in a row", not having the "authentic common touch" and needing "a sharp dose of reality".
Again, on July 28th, David Carroll was crowing about FF's "impressive achievement" and FG's "disastrous" showing, leaving the party "dead and buried".
Given these contributions to the post-election political debate, the practice of taunting is obviously not confined to the sports field. I would have thought that having an alternative government is essential in a democracy. Yet all that many political commentators, and your three correspondents in particular, can contribute to the debate is to taunt the losers and try to undermine the credibility of the opposition leaders.
Boot-licking those in power and rejoicing in the conversion of this democratic republic into a one-party-state is, to put it mildly, unwise. - Yours, etc,
A LEAVY, Shielmartin Drive, Sutton, Dublin 13.