Monday, March 15, 2010

Home National Sports Business Lifestyles Religion Arts & Culture Pulse Spice Editorial letters Opinion Foodie Sportscope Real Talks Weekend Report PDF's Classifieds Contact About Us Archive Weather

Letters | Opinion | Editorial | Weekend Report
The political debate By Philip C. Galanis: T he historic political debate between four of the five candidates that was held in the Elizabeth constituency this past week has evoked varied responses ranging from kudos for its innovative and ingenious initiative to a cacophony of criticisms, including one columnist's characterization of the event as a "chaotic sham". However, despite some apparent deficiencies that were detected in the "debate in Lizzy", I suggest that we should consider this... was the experience really that defective that we should dismiss such debates to the dung heap in the future? I hope not. I believe that political debates like the one recently staged must be encouraged and we should commend Mr. Wendall Jones and Jones Communications for the contribution that he and his enterprise have made to the deepening of our democracy. The debate this past week proves how important debates on the issues are to the political process. Their purpose is to elect persons who best understand and appreciate the needs, hopes, aspirations and concerns of constituents and the objective of such an exercise is foundationally fermented in the need for the informed voter to clearly understand where candidates stand on issues of national importance. Additionally, a debate presents a candidate in a light that is not seen in any other context during a campaign. Traditionally, we get to see and hear our candidates at rallies organized by their parties. There, before a partisan crowd, buoyed by the boisterous approval of adoring audiences and supported by the stream of accolades of political compatriots, the candidate can put forth his platform, his vision and his promises, interrupted only by applause. However, during a debate, the candidate must confront, face to face, those who oppose him, those who spend their time telling voters why those other candidates are not suitable or deserving of their votes. It is a hostile environment in the public eye, truly a test, not only of the candidate's composure but of his grace under fire and his ability to keep his temper, his focus and his message on track. With this debate last week, we saw all of that ... and more. We saw the fiery, old style campaign rhetoric of veteran activist and agitator Rodney Moncur rock the business-like demeanor of newcomer Ryan Pinder, incense Dr. Andre Rollins and apparently stun Cassius Stuart into silence. Moncur's blunt opinions - frequently verging on the scurrilous - often provoked laughter in the audience and sometimes made the listener wonder if he were there for comic relief. But his audacious comments not only made it clear where he stood on the issues, but exposed the other three candidates to a verbal opposition that they certainly appeared unused to. And it was how they handled these attacks by Moncur that revealed a lot about these men. Ryan Pinder reacted stoically, seeming to grip the podium like a captain in a very stormy sea, staring straight ahead with no reaction to the verbal hurricane that was battering his ship. He kept his focus, delivering the answers to his questions calmly, albeit almost with gritted teeth, preferring to ignore Moncur's attacks, personal and political. He stuck to his talking points, meticulously going over his plans for the future of Elizabeth and his vision for the country. Dr. Andre Rollins, said by many to have "won" the debate, chose to confront Moncur's fusillade of fury and barrage of bombast with indignation at times and, at other times, with rebuttals of Moncur's opinions and positions. He also stated his points with an intensity and passion that conveyed his concern for Elizabeth and its residents. Cassius Stuart, a veteran of the political wars, having run in the general elections of 2002 and 2007, seemed to be almost a shadow of his former fiery self, looking on almost stunned at Moncur's attacks. He answered his questions adequately but without the strength and energy of his three opponents, presenting an almost lackadaisical persona, which is far from the Cassius Stuart we have all come to know. He was without the fire and fervor of his former campaigns, almost to the point of fading into the background. For one candidate, it was not his participation that helped shape opinions about him but his absence. I am speaking of the Free National Movement's (FNM) Dr. Duane Sands who opted out of the debate. The jury is still out on whether his absence will have a negative impact on his campaign. There are those who believe that he is the front runner and, as such, he does not need to debate and that such confrontations can only harm his position. Then there are those who regard his refusal to participate as a sign of weakness and fear to expose himself to the harsh light of direct confrontation with his opponents. Now that we have had the first debate between opposing candidates in a constituency, going forward what should we expect to see in future political debates? One of the most essential prerequisites for a successful debate is the belief that the moderator is an honest broker, that he has no obvious political partisan preference. He must be perceived by the debaters to be firm but fair, constructively critical but composed. The sponsor of the debate has to also be above repute. For example, one of the two political debates that were staged during the 2002 general election which featured the leaders of the two major political parties, namely, Perry Christie and Tommy Turnquest, was sponsored by the Catholic Church. The sponsor is important because it sets the stage as to whether all debate participants will believe that the field is level. Additionally, it is vitally important that the rules of engagement are clearly and unambiguously spelled out for all to see. This means that they must be written and ideally agreed to by all debate participants. The classic rules of timing and rebuttal should be approved by all, with signed contracts binding them. There should also be arrangements in place to swiftly and expeditiously deal with any participants who break the agreements and attempt to highjack the debate. While the topics can be revealed to the participants in advance, the specific questions that will be asked must be safeguarded from being leaked or seen in advance by any of the participants. Once again, this should be done with the cooperation of a respected entity. It is also very important to determine the extent to which the organizers will allow a live audience to witness the debate. Several times during the "debate in Lizzy", the moderator had to caution persons in the audience from engaging in audible participation. If the audience becomes too involved in the debate by their commentary or reactions to the debate participants, this could create too much distraction for the participants as well as for the viewing or listening audience. In reality, a too active audience almost becomes another, unwanted debater in its influence. At the end of the day, a fully informed citizen always makes the best voter which has the much-desired effect of electing the best candidate for Parliament. A debate of candidates within each constituency can only assist the voter in more fully knowing those candidates. It will also create stronger, more eloquent candidates who are able to stand on their own, articulating their views away from the safety of their party's rallies and other gatherings. If they are unable to do that, if a candidate cannot communicate his or her views in a hostile environment, they should not even consider trying to become a member of Parliament, a job that requires them to be able to express their views in what is perhaps one of the most hostile of all established environments: The House of Assembly. Until we take seriously the idea of political debates, honing candidates into true representatives of the people and voters into incisive and critical thinkers, we will continue to send mediocre representatives to Parliament. That chronic mediocrity that we have perpetuated for years is not good for the ship of state or its passengers or the future of the nation. Philip C. Galanis is the Managing Partner of HLB Galanis Bain, Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament. Please send your comments to pgalanis@gmail.com. Monday February 15, 2010