 |
| |
Political debates or press conferences
Published in the Jamaica Gleaner: Tuesday | August 14, 2007
Devon Dick
In the 1980s, I enjoyed being part of the United Theological College of the West Indies' debating team which included persons such as Clinton Chisholm, Kirton Lashley and Rodwell Thom. For two years, we debated the Halls of UWI Mona campus and never lost a match.
I, therefore, accepted the invitation from Nationwide News Network to be a part of a team led by moderators Emily Crooks, Cliff Hughes and Carol Narcisse to analyse the political debate between political leaders the Most Honourable Portia Simpson Miller and Mr. Bruce Golding. It was on reflecting on the political debate that it dawned on me that it was really not a political debate but more akin to a press conference.
It was not like the UWI debates. The format of the debates arranged by the Jamaica Debates Commission is similar to that of a press conference wherein members of the media ask questions. At the minimum, for it to be a debate the same questions should have been asked of both parties so as to seethe difference in arguments and to get appropriate rebuttals. Asking the participants different questions reinforces a press conference status. Interestingly, of the six debaters only Portia recognised the structural weakness of the rules when she said that she saw nothing to rebut in one of Bruce's response. She was correct. In fact, most times there was nothing to rebut but the participants used the 45 seconds to make statements unrelated to rebuttal.
Minister of Finance
In addition, the truth is if Portia wins it does not mean that Dr. Omar Davies will remain the Minister of Finance or if Bruce wins that Mr. Audley Shaw will become Minister of Finance. Yet they are the ones who articulated their respective portfolios. That selection of candidates makes sense if the elections are conducted like UWI Guild elections in that before the elections we know who is running for which portfolio.
Until we make such constitutional changes, a better debating format would be how it was done at UWI or even on the National Schools' Debating Competition. The PNP and JLP should have a three-member debating team lead by their respective party leaders. The party leader would speak for 15 minutes and outline a vision and a mission statement. This would include how the leader sees Jamaica in five years; how the leader intends to get the best out of the Jamaican people; who is better to unite the country; what methods would be used and what values inform their lives and party. Furthermore, the leader would give a broad outline of the overall business plan (manifesto) of their party and what would be their emphasis in the budget.
Then the second speaker would speak to the economy in 12 minutes and outline how the five-year business plan would be financed. Dr. Damion King, one of the CVM TV analysts for the Davies/Shaw debate be-moaned that he did not hear from the participants any economic philosophy. Is it a trickle-down policy or a bottom-up? Is it going to be driven by the private sector or the state? This speaker would outline the philosophy.
The third speaker gets ten minutes to address social issues. Each team would have six minutes for rebuttal. This format would give more in-depth policy statements, better rebuttals and better debates. The moot: Be it resolved that Jamaica should change course with JLP proposing and PNP opposing.
The present format allowed the same questions about crime, housing and funding of promises to be asked in more than one debate and hence it got boring at times. Also, only Lloyd B. Smith asked a question on foreign policy and it was unfortunately pitched as a struggle between Chavez and the USA, ignoring Caricom, Europe, Asia and South America.
The format I have indicated above would make it more of a debate and less of a press conference.
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
