INSIDE POLITICS:THE PRESIDENTIAL election campaign has come to life in the past week and is turning out to be far more interesting than many had expected it would.
In spite of some tut-tutting about negative campaigning, the robust exchanges between some of the candidates have helped to generate public interest in the contest. While people may say they dislike seeing candidates getting stuck into each other, in fact there is nothing like a good row to stir voters from apathy.
More to the point, it is vital for the democratic process that candidates should be free to question the record, policies and suitability for office of their opponents. Only through that process will voters acquire vital information about the people standing for election and seeking their support.
Gay Mitchell may not be having a great campaign to date, but he performed a vital service in the TV3 debate by insisting Martin McGuinness’s leading role in the IRA campaign was something voters should consider when choosing their next president.
Mitchell’s performance was criticised in sections of the media but, strangely enough, the more aggressive and theatrical questioning of McGuinness about his past by the moderator of the debate, Vincent Browne, was widely lauded, and rightly so.
The tendency of the media to slate politicians for attacking each other while reserving the right for itself to attack all and sundry was noted more than a decade ago by US journalism professor Ted J Smith.
“The situation has now evolved to the point where if a political candidate offers any criticism of an opponent’s character, record or policies, he risks press censure,” he wrote. “Yet criticism is an essential in testing political leaders and ideas and, as many politicians will affirm, journalists certainly have no qualms about levelling such attacks. The effect of proscribing negative campaigning is to reserve for journalists the exclusive right to initiate political criticism.”
By focusing on McGuinness’s past, Mitchell helped to ensure the public knows as much as possible about the Sinn Féin candidate. McGuinness’s calm response to the charges against him may have impressed people, but one way or another the controversy has ensured voters won’t go to the polls in ignorance of an important part of his record.
Mitchell deserves credit for doing his job without fear of the consequences. All of the other candidates took the easy option and said nothing to challenge McGuinness. It may have been the clever thing to do, but it tells us something about all of them.
There is a difference, of course, between raising serious questions about a candidate’s record and crude attempts at a political smear. A smear is something based on a misrepresentation of the facts, or a complete fabrication but, so far in this campaign, there is no evidence either the candidates or the media have engaged in smears.
The questions over letters David Norris wrote on behalf of his former partner were perfectly legitimate in the context of his desire to be president. It is legitimate to explore the precise nature of his views about whether there should be an age of consent, given he is on record in the Seanad on the topic.
The attempt to generate a controversy over Mitchell’s letters on behalf of death row inmates was hardly comparable, but it was part of the normal electioneering.
Mary Davis’s record on State boards and her status as an insider during the Bertie Ahern years was a legitimate issue to raise, as was the extraordinary saga of Dana Rosemary Scallon’s US citizenship and the court case in Iowa regarding her financial position.
The only candidates who have managed to escape serious criticism are Michael D Higgins and Seán Gallagher, who now lead the field. This is partly because the media and their opponents haven’t given them a strong test to date, but it is also because they have managed to defuse potential criticism in an effective way. Higgins has been campaigning serenely for the past two months, spreading sweetness and light. His age could have become a liability during the campaign, but by meeting it head on and dealing humorously when journalists questioned him on it, he turned it into an advantage. He has converted his long political experience into a positive attribute for his presidential ambitions.
Remarkably in a campaign where many voters appear to be looking for an alternative to established politicians, Higgins, the longest- serving politician in the field and a former cabinet minister, has managed not only to get out in front but to be the favoured candidate for second preferences as well.
Gallagher’s surge to second place is even more remarkable, given he has had to fight the campaign on a shoestring. He has converted that negative into a positive by making a virtue of his lack of posters and arguing cogently that election addresses of all candidates should be sent out in one envelope.
Gallagher has put himself into contention in spite of his Fianna Fáil background, at a time when the party was afraid to contest the election because of its toxic brand. One of the reasons for this was that instead of trying to hide his relatively minor role in Fianna Fáil’s past, he acknowledged it.
His profile on TV show Dragons' Denhas been key, but he has also managed to find an effective way of communicating his vision of the president's role to the electorate. Both Higgins and Gallagher have impressed in the way they have dealt with potentially difficult questions, but they will face more of them in this campaign. There will inevitably be twists and turns, but it now looks as if one of them will take office.