Dear Editor,
Much has been said and is still being said on the point of our two main political parties debating each other as a part of the political process leading up to the election. Most of the writers condemn the People’s National Party (PNP) for refusing to participate. I do agree that their reasons for refusing are rather whimsical. It is either down to political arrogance or they are fearful that they might not perform impressively enough in line with their campaign vigour.
However, my main point of concern is not so much about the PNP’s reluctance in being a part of the debates. My problem is mostly to do with the whole nature and structure of the debates themselves. I notice that the debates are structured mostly around questions from the panellists and rebuttals from the debaters. If one should judge the whole affair based on what transpired last time, then there wouldn’t be much to gain from having it done.
I say this based on the fact that there is no guarantee that the relevant areas and issues that the public would want to be addressed would be covered by those asking the questions. Also, based on the made-for-television set-up of the whole process, it does not allow for detailed information on important areas of concern to the public; plus the fact that rigorous scrutiny and detailed rebuttals cannot be entertained.
I think the debates should be more comprehensive in presentation, so as to give a clearer picture of the policies and proposals that each aspirant intends to execute in office. In fact, I think each party should debate based on their manifestos and each department of government provide a representative while the Opposition provides their shadow person.
As it stands now, the debates are not effective in being a useful indicator towards the policies and direct plans by our various leaders. They need to have more substance as opposed to worrying over performance on the day, and who is the better debater, those are sideshows that have little or no relevance to actual governance.
Urijah Deacon
rastadeacon@yahoo.com
Much has been said and is still being said on the point of our two main political parties debating each other as a part of the political process leading up to the election. Most of the writers condemn the People’s National Party (PNP) for refusing to participate. I do agree that their reasons for refusing are rather whimsical. It is either down to political arrogance or they are fearful that they might not perform impressively enough in line with their campaign vigour.
However, my main point of concern is not so much about the PNP’s reluctance in being a part of the debates. My problem is mostly to do with the whole nature and structure of the debates themselves. I notice that the debates are structured mostly around questions from the panellists and rebuttals from the debaters. If one should judge the whole affair based on what transpired last time, then there wouldn’t be much to gain from having it done.
I say this based on the fact that there is no guarantee that the relevant areas and issues that the public would want to be addressed would be covered by those asking the questions. Also, based on the made-for-television set-up of the whole process, it does not allow for detailed information on important areas of concern to the public; plus the fact that rigorous scrutiny and detailed rebuttals cannot be entertained.
I think the debates should be more comprehensive in presentation, so as to give a clearer picture of the policies and proposals that each aspirant intends to execute in office. In fact, I think each party should debate based on their manifestos and each department of government provide a representative while the Opposition provides their shadow person.
As it stands now, the debates are not effective in being a useful indicator towards the policies and direct plans by our various leaders. They need to have more substance as opposed to worrying over performance on the day, and who is the better debater, those are sideshows that have little or no relevance to actual governance.
Urijah Deacon
rastadeacon@yahoo.com