Election debates – own the future not the past
THE FACT that the national elections debate is now a permanent feature of our national elections is proof that Jamaican democracy is maturing, and we should all be proud of this as it offers incontrovertible proof of the evolution of our imperfect democratic experiment that commenced in 1962.
The importance of this is certainly heightened when we note that today, the Internet has made it possible for Jamaicans in the diaspora to be co-equal witnesses in this wonderful evolution even if they are still without that vote. One suspects that in about 50 years, this issue will no longer be one of debate as a group of people who are constantly being courted will, ultimately, given their economic importance, demand a seat at the table. It is inevitable.
It is also inevitable that as we analyse these debates, the partisan supporters will weigh in and tell you that their team or person won, but when you drill down and start fact- checking some of the assertions, we find gaping holes.
If we are to start with the first of the three, I would give this to the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) but not by a wide margin. Floyd Green surely used his experience gained at the Ministry of Education to his advantage and also that which he has gained working in his current role as junior minister in the Ministry of Industry. He has room to improve on his delivery, but I suspect that Dayton Campbell would, at this stage, love to be criticised for his style of delivery as opposed to what emanated from his mouth.
Campbell’s attempt at a political jab fell flat as he was clobbered by Christopher Tufton, who was really absent and flat throughout. Campbell committed a cardinal mistake: he got his facts wrong on a sensitive issue, but he went a bit further by failing to apologise. I am sure that he now regrets not apologising.
REPEATED THE MANTRA
However, let us not allow that to overshadow Raymond Pryce’s performance on the night. He was not only his usual eloquent self, but he landed some good jabs, and I liked the fact that he was very sensible in reminding voters that the JLP administration has had time at the wicket to make runs. In this regard, he repeated the mantra – 55 months. His closing submission was not his best moment, and I say this because he spent too much of his precious moments telling the voter what the other side has not done in its tenure. While he was looking into the camera, he ought to have sold the future to the voter.
The second debate with Nigel Clarke and Mark Golding was not glamorous as there is nothing fashionable about a country facing a possible contraction of its economy by at least seven per cent. I was really awaiting specifics from Dr Clarke on the issue of how the Jamaica Labour Party would reorganise the economy to get the adjusted output. I got tired of waiting and so was relieved when he was asked the five-in-four question. He waffled his way on that one and provided an answer on the importance of growth. A kind of swat-type answer, and it was at that stage that I concluded that the usually straightanswering Clarke had taken a moment’s leave from the debate. He did not answer the question with what he said.
Mark Golding was not as muscular in his responses, and he appeared a bit more sedate when compared with his opponent. Perhaps that was because he had the responsibility of explaining the ambitious spending plans that the Damion Crawford-chaired Manifesto Committee came up with. He did his best.
However, while he made it clear that the goal might not be the end product, Dr Clarke was not convinced that this utterly sincere politician and lawyer was himself sold on the riskier aspects of the manifesto. This to me was a measured but good discussion, and Clarke was more aggressive in his style even if he failed to answer the five-in-four question. Perhaps some persons were left disappointed as neither party was able to let us in on the biggest secret: how will they organise the economy to both operate and take advantage of the new COVID-19 reality?
ANTICLIMACTIC
The third debate between the party leaders was anything but anticlimactic. Dr Peter Phillips needed this to come off good for him, and it did. Andrew Holness, buoyed by his poll lead, fired the first salvo by dubbing Dr Phillips the ‘Tax Man’. Problem was Andrew’s timing: it was illtimed, and so, unlike Dr Clarke’s hashtag comment, the ‘Papa Tax’ jab did not work. Mr Holness, while seemingly confident, lost me when he started reading from a prepared script. I was a bit puzzled by that as not even Sarah Palin read when she was up against Biden in the 2008 Vice Presidential Debate.
That will remain a mystery, but the PM’s strategy was the natural one: talk about the performance and make the case for more time to do more. Not a bad strategy,but the problem with political records is that they are rarely without blemish. This is where Dr Phillips dropped a few sitters. The first catch that came to him was in respect of the fixed election date. Dr Phillips could have been more effective in his rebuttal. He spoke about the Government not keeping its commitment. It was Andrew Holness, and for the life of me I could not understand that sort of overly polite response.
Then came the question on gender balance in the Parliament. Dr Phillips gave a factually correct answer (remove the barriers that affect women disproportionately). This was another sitter on which he should have capitalised. Thirdly, his rebuttal of the PM’s waffle on the lack of integrity by some members of his Cabinet was just beyond belief. This was his chance to really go in and say to the voter: “He is not new and different. If he was, why is JC Hutchinson still a member of Cabinet, or why is Daryl Vaz still collecting a state-paid-for salary?” Maybe this level of gentility from Dr Phillips was calculated as the PM repaid it with his response to the question that engaged the issue of Phillips’ health.
MISSED A TRICK
The PM himself missed a trick. This was his moment to have been only a statesman. He started off well but fell below par when he ventured to tell the voter: “I have a clean bill of health”. A statesman would have not only congratulated the opposition leader, but he would have looked at him directly and thanked him for his years of committed public service, and to add the sugar on top, salute the doctors and nurses who worked to bring Dr Phillips back to good health. Had he done that, I would have overlooked the fact that the PM came across as being arrogant at times or that he wore a facial expression that told the simple story: “I would rather be somewhere else.” It was a good discussion in the main, but the PM needed to have performed better as Dr Phillips surprised everyone.
The females in the debate were not as stellar as they themselves, perhaps, wanted to be. Kamina Johnson Smith struck me as a person who had memorised the JLP’s manifesto and talking points but whose memory failed her. Her answers were not well resourced, and I struggled to follow her. Take the question on the promised but still-to-be constructed domestic violence units. I am still waiting for her to explain the delay with an answer that she herself believed.
Lisa Hanna, a last-minute addition to the team, but an experienced member of Parliament and former media practitioner, jabbed her female opponent with a memorable line. Lisa pivots too easily to the 1970s at a time when her party is struggling to pick up support from the younger voters. The 1970s was clearly a period of radical reforms, but elections are won by the party that can own the future. This is where Lisa failed as I wanted to hear more about the future from her. You win by exciting voters about the future that you want them to permit you to create for them.
The maturation of our democratic experiment is assured as confirmed by the debates, and we salute all those who worked with the participants, and even as I am critical of the debaters, make no mistake about it, it is not an easy role to perform.