ed Sprint to voting day

Make final appeals with sincerity, not mudslinging

By midnight today, all official campaigns for the 18th presidential election will come to an end, leaving only the popular vote to deliver a verdict. A day is probably too short a time to change voters’ minds but long enough to improve, or not aggravate, the culture of the election that became dirtier and nastier toward the finale.

It was regrettable in this regard that the two major contenders wasted much of their time on wrangling over illegal electioneering in cyberspace, in their third and last debate Sunday.

Park Geun-hye, the ruling Saenuri Party’s candidate, took issue with the opposition’s hasty, unfounded accusation that an employee of the National Intelligence Service uploaded postings slandering Park’s rival, Moon Jae-in, and called for him to apologize for infringing on a National Intelligence Service (NIS) agent’s privacy. Moon refused and hit back, pointing out Park’s unwarranted meddling in police probes.

In a better, more reasonable situation, Moon should have expressed regret for possibly violating the rights of the NIS employee, especially if she is proven innocent. Park also should have clearly explained about a number of cyber-warrior groups led by a Christian pastor, which allegedly worked for her using funds from her campaign.

In reality, both candidates were too busy accusing each other, and not admitting their own problems. If leaders were like these, it would be hard to tell their workers to refrain from mudslinging and smear campaigns. The rampant negative campaigns would have been less pitiable had one of the main slogans of the rival campaigns not been ``new politics.” Candidates and their campaigners must know that their practicing of clean politics can be a last-minute determinant for up to 10 percent of voters that are still wavering.

Most shocking in this vein was the reported comment by Park’s chief campaigner that the increasingly muddy campaign climate could work to their advantage by driving undecided ― and disillusioned ― voters away from polling booths. Any campaign that bets on lower voter turnout is not just despicable but also unethical for hindering the long-term development of the nation’s democracy in pursuit of its short-term political gains. Some voters might have suspected that all these last-minute dogfights are intentional doings of the ruling camp.

One should say that Sunday’s debate, the first one-on-one that became an uninhibited duel, was far better than the previous two.

And this stresses the need for election managers to overhaul the current debate rules to more strictly regulate the qualifications of participants while deregulating proceedings.

All this notwithstanding, it was good that the final debate provided voters with a good opportunity to compare the talents of the two remaining candidates especially in terms of how detailed their preparations were, the persuasiveness of their discourse, and whether they communicated with clarity. Only the first genuine debate came too late to change voters’ allegiance to either candidate, another reason they should hold more frequent, no-holds-barred debates between candidates for the nation’s most important job the next time.

We hope all parties involved will play fair on the last day of this landmark election. Regardless of who wins, Korea’s democracy should never be the loser.