We wonder what would have happened, if upon tearing Mr Don Foote’s shirt during the 2007 election campaign, Mr Luther Buchanan, the People’s National Party’s member of parliament, had apologised immediately and led his supporters away from the fray.

Would things have come to what the lead story of yesterday’s edition of our sister title, the Observer West, reported, namely a court appearance followed by mediation prior to an agreement to apologise and collaborate in the best interests of the constituency?

Still, we’re not complaining.

For we know that sorry is one of the hardest words to say voluntarily within the context of this society, especially in the absence of good examples and encouragement.

Without taking sides, it seems fair to conclude that things got out of hand on both sides of the political divide in the run-up to the 2007 general elections.

Indeed, over the past four or so decades, the entire tenor of civil society has fallen to a level, the embarrassment of which becomes especially glaring when the toss-up for political power climaxes.

We recall with clarity, how often the contentious debate over which party is best suited to govern the country, resulted in harsh words and, in many cases, outrageous behaviour.

Politicians have found themselves being likened to animals, idiots and liars as low blows and the culture of one-upmanship take centrestage.

Nowhere in all of this do we recall anyone apologising for their behaviour.

Even after the heat of battle had cooled, people seemed content to move on without the slightest showing of remorse, as if churlish behaviour is an inevitable facet of our culture.

This is sad.

Because it suggests that the spirit of coarseness and barbarity which attended the 2007 and previous elections, and which attends everyday life here, has trumped the culture of civility that was characteristic of an earlier era in this society.

And it appears not to recognise that the problems we face today, the crime in particular, have their origins in the breakdown of values and attitudes to which we pay such short shrift.

It is against this background that we wish to congratulate both men for agreeing to work their political differences out in what — sadly — seems to have been the only manner that they were capable of.

According to our story, the public apology is to be aired at a joint meeting to be convened by the executives of both parties.

It would be good if all those other people in positions of influence who know they are guilty of uncouth behaviour, for which they have yet to apologise, attend, if only to show support for the spirit of the agreement.

There’s no need to call any names.

Suffice it to say that if the relevant authorities on both sides of the political divide decide to engage in a bit of honest introspection, we expect that no matter how large the meeting venue, it will be standing room only.