The Editor, Sir:

The recent election campaign was undoubtedly a very clever, skilful and professionally-orchestrated operation, more so by one side than the other.

Most disconcerting, however, was the unprecedentedly blatant deception and personal denigration which typified the advertising campaign and platform speeches. Much too often, speakers descended into vitriolic attacks, coming too close at times to obscenity.

Manipulation, distortion, misrepresentation and humiliating personal attacks cannot be appropriate and should not be tolerated, much less rewarded, in a dignified society seeking to make balanced and responsible judgement on national affairs. And this took place when impressionable youngsters might well have been watching TV.

Gross disrespect

Very remarkable, too, was the gross disrespect and abuse directed by some in the print media at the holder of the highest political office, and others, in a democratic Jamaica. Freedom of the press enshrines an obligation to the public and presumes the exercise of self restraint and civility. Otherwise, a sacred trust is betrayed in pursuit of self-interest or personal grudges.

Well-thinking and patriotic Jamaicans could indeed be alienated from the democratic process if this type of behaviour characterises those who are in charge of the nation's affairs. A much lower than predicted voter turnout suggests, among other things, cynicism and disapproval of certain aspects of the recent electioneering. Some consider this to have been a major part of the reason why so many of the electorate, as a strong statement of concern, did not bother to vote.

Prejudices unity

An equally serious consequence is that it prejudices chances of post-election unity and cooperation in the national interest, so vitally necessary at this time. Feelings of hurt and resentment no doubt still run deep. It is too complacent to say 'if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen'! There must be a line that should not be crossed if the electoral process is not to be unacceptably sullied.

The political ombudsman should be publicly and strongly supported in his seeming displeasure with these aspects of the campaign, even if he does not specify what sanctions ought to be applied.

Perhaps the guardians of the Political Code of Conduct, the Broadcasting Commission and the Media Association of Jamaica would be so kind as to let us have their views.

I am, etc.,

H. DALE ANDERSON

hdaleanderson@gmail.com