THE PRESIDENTIAL election campaign is turning out to be fiercely competitive as candidates and their sponsoring parties seek to inflict damage on opponents by drawing attention to perceived weaknesses and past activities. That is the raw nature of politics. What is special on this occasion is the unprecedented number of candidates going forward and the complexity this has generated in terms of potentially damaging issues. Martin McGuinness has been questioned on his IRA past; Mary Davis was compelled to disclose her earnings and Dana Rosemary Scallon has been challenged about uncompromising religious views.
Since his nomination, David Norris has been under pressure to disclose the content of a number of letters he wrote in support of a former partner Ezra Nawi who was found guilty of statutory rape in 1997. Because those representations caused the Senator to retire from the nomination process two months ago, it is an eminently reasonable request. He has declined to do so, however, and obviously hopes the media and the electorate will tire of the matter. For a candidate with an international reputation, who has actively campaigned for human rights and for transparency in public life, that is a disappointing response.
When the controversy based on the letters became public many of his campaign team resigned. Mr Norris released one of the letters and announced his retirement from the contest. He admitted what he had done was wrong and said decisive action was required to prevent people close to him from being contaminated by the fallout. He also regretted giving the impression that he did not have sufficient compassion for the victim of the crime. That concession carried echoes of comments he had made in 2002 concerning pederasty in classical Greece. Regarding that controversial interview, Mr Norris maintained his remarks had been taken out of context and did not reflect his views on sexual morality today.
Encouraged to re-enter the race, he secured a late nomination from four county councils. It was a significant achievement, reflecting public support for the candidate and a perception the nomination process was excessively restrictive. In facilitating the Senator, however, councillors would have expected him to address the letters issue. Instead, he refused to do so based on legal advice. It was a self-serving response. Names and potentially defamatory material could have been redacted, leaving most of the content untouched.
Appealing for clemency for a close friend on Oireachtas notepaper amounted to political misjudgment and an abuse of office. Mr Norris later acknowledged that writing the letters, although motivated by “love and concern”, was wrong. Their content, he conceded, might “contaminate” other people. In seeking election, candidates are expected to be above reproach and to be free from baggage that could cause a future scandal affecting the presidency. By refusing to deal with this issue, Mr Norris has raised such a prospect. If he persists in that inflexible approach, the electorate will draw its own conclusions.