 |
| |
Of a First-World standard
Published in the Jamaica Gleaner: Friday | August 10, 2007
Dr. Henley Morgan, Contributor
To the credit of the Jamaica Debates Commission, the moderator, the panellists, the two protagonists and, indeed, to Jamaica, the performance, generally speaking, was of First-World standard.
The rules of engagement and the decision to theme the exchange facilitated an in-depth, albeit not exhaustive, exploration of the topic.
The process was fairly adjudicated and the questions were penetrative. However, in the best tradition of such events, the overall approach was a little too staid, possibly reflecting the personality of the individuals.
The areas dealt with under the topic 'social policy' centred mainly on the so-called big-ticket items of crime and violence, education, health and employment. A quick read of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) Manifesto will reveal the many other important areas that could have been covered, namely: gender equity, safety net for the poor, enabling the disabled, security for the elderly, protecting our children and youths and community empowerment. These omissions, or lack of emphasis, were due to the bias and interests reflected in the panellists' questions, as much as to the narrow focus of the debaters.
The opening salvo usually gives a fair indication of how the debate will proceed. Here, Dr. Peter Phillips was the first at bat. Articulate and confident, he recounted his party's achievements starting in the 1940s and continuing up to the present time. Dr. Kenneth Baugh's opening presentation was more divergent in scope; placing Jamaica as a failing state within a global context and laced with satire concerning the need to 'change course'. At this stage, both gentlemen were on even footing.
Fair exchange
From this point onward, the exchanges were fairly even and more coloured by style. Dr. Phillips grew in confidence, spoke extemporaneously, dealt with specifics when the opportunity arose and avoided being defensive not outdone by any stretch of the imagination, Dr. Baugh adopted a stoical posture, tended to rely more on his notes and in some cases, forced the answer to fit the question.
Greatest weakness
The litmus test came when questions were directed to the perceived areas of greatest weakness. For Dr. Baugh, this related to the many campaign promises made by the JLP and how they would be financed. For Dr. Phillips, it was the lack of social progress, particularly in the area of law and order, over so many years in government. In these instances, Peter Phillips again outshone his rival, skilfully crafting his argument and using statistics to create what many will no doubt see in retrospect, to be an illusion. On the other hand, Ken Baugh came up about $40 billion short of an estimated $60 billion assessed by Peter Phillips.
One can surmise that, in school, Dr. Phillips would have been the better debater. If on a replay, one needs evidence of this, one only needs to listen to the closing statement, which to put it modestly, was a 'slam dunk'.
How did the debaters compare on this night? Judged on content, oral presentation, demeanour and believability/sincerity, Dr. Phillips gets 8/10, Dr. Baugh 6.5/10 and Jamaica 9/10 for producing such fine intellectual specimens.
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
