Shaw was the better, but both parties lacked depth

Published in the Jamaica Gleaner: Wednesday | August 15, 2007

Winston Lawson, Contributor

The debate between Dr. Omar Davies and Audley Shaw was certainly an improvement over the first between Drs. Phillips and Baugh. With the passionate firebrand Audley Shaw and the consistent use of rhetoric by Omar Davies, the debate was interesting. Shaw, however, was the better of the two on the night.

I am happy that both debaters were clearly well prepared and knowledgeable as should be expected for a debate at this level.

What was made very clear to me is that the path proposed for Jamaica from the two are poles apart. Dr. Davies appears contented with the current course based on the unprecedented investments and low inflation which will eventually lead to the consistently elusive high growth levels in country.

Dr. Davies is not convinced that cheaper money is available, whether from the multilaterals or elsewhere, nor that savings from corruption will bring any significant sums. Shaw on the other hand pushed job and wealth creation, cutting corruption and the country earning itself out of the high levels of debt. He is convinced that cheaper money is available elsewhere and with reduced corruption, significant savings can be attained.

I did not hear much about the issue of prioritisation. For instance, provision of adequate water supply for the citizens of the country or the provision of Highways. Provision of funds for education, health, police force or provision for Cricket World Cup. How and on what basis, are these decisions made?

I would have expected Shaw to be better able to respond to the funding issues of the manifesto as he surely would have expected this to have been demanded of him. While he gave better insight than Dr. Baugh did, he allowed Dr. Davies and the panellists to consistently question the credibility of funding. Likewise, Dr Davies should have expected to answer for the 'run wid it' issue. However, his response was pitiful at best, and Shaw punished him in his rebuttal.

Both debaters continue to miss the underlying principle regarding FINSAC. It is important that any Government understand that its role includes implementation of working systems; regulatory, judicial or otherwise to protect the citizens of the country. Whether the financial sector meltdown of the nineties was due to deviant behaviour from citizens is factual or not, this cannot be a plausible explanation from any Government and must be rejected. Deviant behaviour from citizens will always occur in the absence of strong values, but Government can play its part to minimise this by ensuring strong efficient systems are in place to deter and minimise it. That is their job.

All citizens have a role to play in minimising deviant behaviour. Any Government's job must include implementation of adequate functional systems.