There is at very least prima facie evidence of malevolent attempts to undermine the presidential campaign of Ms Adi Roche. Some of her former colleagues in the Chernobyl Children's Project have their own axes to grind and have done so with passion. But over and above the fallout from the internal wranglings and rivalries of a volunteer charity organisation, there has been an insidious attempt to smear Ms Roche and her family politically.
Ms Roche's critics from within the Project - past and present - have hardly shown themselves to be very efficient assassins. Their resentment and doubts about her come from the heart. But they have been disorganised and unconvincing in their criticisms. Nothing has emerged to suggest that Ms Roche's management style is much different from what might be encountered in any organisation committed to humanitarian action in a largely-uncaring world. Shop-floor exchanges in most workplaces would very likely be a good deal more colourful than what has been revealed in the videotape of the Project's offices.
People who choose to be missionaries or pioneers are not usually shrinking violets. And if they are, they generally turn out to be quite unsuccessful in their chosen avocations. Anyone with first-hand experience of volunteer organisations will concede that they are prone to particular stresses - most especially when there is a strong, driving figure at the centre of affairs. Day-to-day democracy can have its limitations in these situations. Resentments and misunderstandings often build up and burst into the open, turning former colleagues and collaborators into bitter enemies.
But all this is relatively benign by comparison with the sinister smear campaign which has been orchestrated against Ms Roche and her family. National media have received anonymous calls and letters - this newspaper has had its share - alleging extreme political views among Ms Roche's family and implying thereby that she is an unsuitable candidate for the presidency. All of this is made to pivot upon a series of circumstances - admittedly serious - almost two decades ago when her brother, then a young Army officer, was obliged to leave the defence forces.
Such tactics are utterly reprehensible. Ms Roche or her family cannot be held accountable in any way for whatever happened to her brother when she was a child, scarcely into her teens. Happily, the smear attempts have been identified for what they are. Indeed, if one is to judge by reader and listener reaction in the media they have, if anything, brought a volume of support and sympathy for Ms Roche's candidacy. There may be other reasons why she should not be President of Ireland. She lacks some of the heavyweight experience of Mary Banotti the parliamentarian and Mary McAleese the trained lawyer. And she has difficulty confining herself to using just a few words where she sees an opportunity to squeeze six dozen into a sentence. But she carries no penalty points from what has emerged after her enemies have done their worst this week.