Madam, - Noel Whelan's article on the ongoing political debate in the run-up to the next election makes for depressing reading (Opinion & Analysis, July 8th).
The election, he says, is not about answering questions on the competence or, horror of horrors, the integrity of competing candidates, parties or groups of parties. According to Mr Whelan, "the candidate or party who can get an election contest on to their issues is best positioned to win".
If he is right, it would seem that the party, or group of parties, which spends most on publicity and advertising will win the next election.
Expensive advertising and blanket public relations exercises in the mass media will, according to Mr Whelan's theory, replace independent thought by individual members of society. Vast resources will be spent by a small number of influential people on public relations.
Mr Whelan's argument seems to support the theory that the political sphere has deteriorated into an arena for mass advertising rather than one for critical debate.
The logic of this is that those of us who thought we were part of a democracy, in which rational debate on issues of common interest decided the type of society in which we lived, are mistaken. The reality is that well endowed PR departments will sort out what is politically important and who should govern us.
It is a bleak conclusion but, in fairness to Mr Whelan, it is difficult to refute. So in the next number of months all of us should prepare to be assaulted by a barrage of in-your-face sloganeering and assertions telling us what is good for us if we support our local friendly candidate.
I hope we will retain enough presence of mind to remember that other slogan - caveat emptor. - Yours, etc,
A. LEAVY, Shielmartin Drive, Sutton, Dublin 13.