Nolan’s combative style of journalism necessary to remind our politicians of their responsibilities

EMERITUS Professor Brian M Walker (Comment, March 8) appears not to understand some of the basic tenets of democratic politics and political journalism. He considers that Stephen Nolan’s approach “can sometimes encourage conflict and not problem-solving”. In my view, the reverse is true.

Personally, I find Mr Nolan’s interviews irritating, as, time after time, a politician presents him with an open goal and he asks completely the wrong question. However, his adversarial style of interviewing and his selection of strongly opinionated politicians to debate issues is just what democracy needs in Northern Ireland. Professor Walker cites Mr Nolan constantly seeking to “question efforts by our politicians to move away from promises they had made at recent elections”. In a democracy, politicians should strive to keep to, as far as possible, the promises with which they achieved election from voters.

To do otherwise is to move towards consensus politics, which impose bland political agreements on the electorate. The problem with such consensus is it excludes large sections of the population, who then find themselves unrepresented by the people they elected.

Politics in a democracy must be adversarial for that democracy to prosper. Political journalism should seek to remind elected representatives of promises they made to their constituents.

As for encouraging “voices of moderation”, which Professor Walker advocates, I would remind him of the words of the late American Senator, Barry Goldwater: “I would remind you that extremism in defence of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

ALANLOVE Lisburn, Co Antrim