Published On:Friday, February 12, 2010

By ADRIAN GIBSON

ajbahama@hotmail.com

THERE was nothing great about the so-called "great debate" for Elizabeth as it was merely a chaotic sham. Disappointingly, it turned out to be nothing more than a political sideshow--a farce.

Jones Communication Network CEO Wendall Jones had a noble idea in organizing such a debate, however, it was poorly organized, the audience was too rowdy and certain participants were overly incendiary. Frankly, the televised broadcast of the debate began with technical glitches.

The "great debate" was hardly an intellectual exchange or debate of ideas, but instead descending into much posturing, lots of finger-jabbing, ruffian-like browbeating, and politically tune-deaf and comical response. Honestly, there were many instances where the debate was tantamount to a laugh fest. Several times during the great debate, I thought that I was watching an episode of BET's Comicview and was thoroughly entertained!

However, the campaign gimmicks put on air during the debate set a horrible precedent for the future of political debates, which are evidently needed in our political culture.

None of the candidates enunciated a clearly defined vision beyond what is commonly uttered. Say what you may about Workers Party leader Rodney Moncur, but he was unambiguous--to say the least--in his responses. On the other hand, there were several instances where some of the other respondents offered answers steeped in the language of insincerity, of cloudy vagueness, outright evasion and, for political mileage, that straddled the political fence.

The political modus operandi--our level of political discourse--is advancing with glacier-like slowness. Bahamians remain too concerned with flag-wagging, pom-poms, t-shirts, free booze and grill-outs, many times politically vacillating and playing musical chairs between the major parties.

A truly organized political debate should be a setting where the candidates face-off, one where multimedia personnel producing catchy sound bites are absent and where the spin-doctors are unable to coach a candidate. The idea of a political debate is to display thinking and speaking skills while under pressure--devoid of prefabricated responses--to shape a candidate's image in a voter's mind and to increase voter confidence.

Opportunity

In its truest sense, a political debate should be an opportunity for candidates to present their views on the major issues affecting this country as a whole and, more specifically, their constituencies. It should provide an opportunity for candidates to explain the manifesto of their party and to state their plans for moving the country forward, whilst also providing an opportunity for counter-arguments to be expressed and for candidates to demonstrate why their position is better than their opponents. It should not merely be about asking and answering questions, but instead serve as an opportunity for demanding accountability while also delving into a candidate's track record.

A debate format is supposed to be governed by a memorandum of understanding between the participants; however, there was hardly any evidence of this during the sidesplitting outfit on Tuesday. Prior to actually watching the debate, I thought that the FNM and Dr Duane Sands were displaying political cowardice and taking a grave political risk by blowing-off the debate. In some ways, I still do. Initially, I saw Dr Sands' refusal to participate as politically insincere, as hiding behind Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham's coat instead of facing the nation and, like the song about Jerry Roker, of giving the slip and ducking. However, after a night of comic relief and glee, in hindsight I now believe that the FNM may have foreseen the hysteria of the "great debate." That said, I do believe that if the debate had taken on a different format, Dr Sands should have been present to champion the vision set out in his mini-manifesto, which he claims to have written. Nation-building cannot occur without a meeting of the minds and true representation for the people of Elizabeth (or any other constituency) demands that politicians move beyond their wounded egos.

Relative to the recent debate, there appeared to be a lack of audience-control and Mr Jones--whom I deeply respect--could have been better steered and redirected and/or demanded responses (e.g., while the other participants avoided questions on the crucial issue of citizenship, only NDP Dr Andre Rollins and Mr Moncur addressed the issue without Mr Jones demanding a response from PLP candidate Ryan Pinder or BDM leader Cassius Stuart). Several times, Mr Jones was also heard cautioning people and promising to call the police to maintain control. One noticeable highpoint is that the questions asked addressed a wide-range of issues.

Furthermore, the coloured podiums--six weeks after junkanoo and on the eve of Trinidad's Carnival--was comedic and indicated that something was amiss and that the "great debate" would not be taken seriously.

Even more, Jones Communications should have specifically identified persons and invited an audience, in order to maintain control, and avoid displays of outright partisanship and heckling. When having such a debate no audience member is supposed to respond, but instead should listen to the candidate's ideas and offer an informed response at the polls. A debate is supposed to feature a reserved audience--it should have had an audience of professionals and members of civil society.

Frankly, while the sycophants parade throughout Elizabeth, it is clear that Bahamian politics must become idiot-proof!

The debate left PLP candidate Ryan Pinder, in some instances, seemingly offering recited responses. At times, he appeared uncomfortable in his own skin. Mr Pinder's shrill, crackling voice made his ideas--some of which were first-rate--less forceful. More than anyone else, Mr Pinder linked his responses to the electorate in Elizabeth.

I have also been told that in order to eliminate an electoral challenge on the grounds of his citizenship--if he wins--Mr Pinder has renounced his US citizenship.

Honesty

Rodney Moncur's straightforward honesty, controversial and comical gestures were enrapturing. I kept tuned in because of Mr Moncur, and I do believe that he is a true nationalist and means well.

Cassius Stuart was of no consequence.

Mr Stuart--clothed in an ill-advised bright, wedding suit--performed poorly, certainly much less than is expected of someone who has been involved in about three elections thus far.

Dr Andre Rollins, who appears to have a fixation with quarters as he yet again produced one at the debate, was impressive, although he--like Mr Moncur--prefaced much of his responses with political potshots.

Dr Rollins was less stiff in the way he presented himself.

Future elections should feature full-scale public debates--throughout the archipelago--starting six months in advance of an election.

Furthermore, rather than a political party believing that its candidate would be ambushed in a debate, the most prominent future debates should be conducted by a moderator agreed upon by all participants and open to all media houses.

Overall, the FNM may have won and gained the most by staying away!