We confess to having some sympathy with Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller's argument that a political campaign of seven weeks, or however long, need not be violent.

Indeed, as the Prime Minister suggests, dire warnings about the likelihood of violence could very well create its own momentum, turning in the end into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yet, we understand the concern of the Opposition Leader, Mr. Golding, about the time between Mrs. Simpson Miller's announcement of the election date and the day on which Jamaicans will vote - August 27.

For though it is a problem that is not as chronic in recent years, it is a fact that Jamaica has, and does suffer from political violence. It was once the case that street thugs with guns politically cleansed communities of supporters of one or the other major political party, a feature that was at its zenith when Jamaican politics was something of a proxy for the Cold War. In the lexicon of Jamaica's political process, we refer to these zones of political exclusion as garrisons.

Nobody wants a return to those bad old days, of which 1980 has become symbolic. In that year, more than 800 people were murdered in Jamaica, about half of the country's homicides for last year. The difference between then and now is that the bulk of the killings 27 years ago were politically motivated.

Another difference between then and now is that while in 1980 Jamaican political leaders spoke out against violence, there was a sense then that the statements were more form than declarations of substantive meaning. The truth is that Jamaica was close to an undeclared civil war. A significant saviour was that while the institutions cracked, creaked and bent, they never fully snapped. They were shored up by an underlying democratic instinct that is, we believe, even firmer today.

While we accept that this instinct is still in need of nurturing, we are wary of a view that suggests that it is a process that ought to be shielded from the robustness that comes with the exercise of the democratic process. Democracy is substantially about a competition of ideas, which usually means debate - which is sometimes strong and aggressive. We lose the essence and circumscribe democracy if we attempt to relegate the process to a sanitised, cloistered discourse.

It is possible, we feel, to engage in a full-blown and culturally appropriate debate and discourse without, as Mr. Golding fears, an aggravation of political tensions or a descent into violence. This demands maturity on the part of political leaders, who must be willing to turn their faces hard against supporters and even party standard bearers who engage in or promote such undemocratic behaviour. For the price of democratic victory in an environment that is free and the process substantially fair, is unworthy of a single drop of an opponent's blood.

Indeed, we are encouraged by the constant refrain about peace by Mrs. Simpson Miller and Mr Golding. They, however, must do more than talk and be ready for the tough action. The parties, their leaders and candidates must ensure that every single contretemps is not elevated into a major confrontation.