 |
| |
CRITIQUING THE DEBATE - Much confidence, few solutions
Published in the Jamaica Gleaner: Friday | August 10, 2007
Hugh Dixon, Contributor.
The debate between Dr. Kenneth Baugh and Dr. Peter Phillips provided a good lead off in the series, as both men are knowledgeable of the Jamaican state of affairs and have good memory. Dr. Phillips settled down early and this gave him the edge over Dr. Baugh. A show of confidence by a debater always helps to convince the audience that the person is genuine and keen on the issues, even if the content of the presentation is weak. Both debaters gain marks for being genuine, but we must scrutinise the content.
Dr. Baugh spent a lot of the allotted time listing the problems and did not leave any time to articulate his strategy or approach to bring about solutions. Dr. Phillips, in his answers and rebuttals, listed what is currently happening or being implemented, but failed to state what policy adjustments and refinement would be undertaken to ensure the outcomes are achieved.
Manifesto crucial
This is where a manifesto becomes a crucial reference document for political parties to make public declaration leading up to an election and to inform debates. Neither debater called on their manifestos in defence of their positions or answers, leading me to assume that the positions taken are personal views rather than researched policy strategy positions of their party.
The value of a manifesto became evident in the responses to funding education and health. The figures referred to by Dr. Baugh and Dr. Phillips were too loose and lacking in specificity. When asked about the failures of the two parties, I thought this offered the debaters an opportunity to admit to shortcomings and to launch into their policy strategies for correcting their mistakes in the next administration.
Over all, I think the debate provided food for thought and, to some extent, could impact on the voting public, especially the uncommitted.
Hugh Dixon is the executive director, Southern Trelawny Environmental Agency.
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
