With American politics so in our faces every four years and in between polling day, calls for our electoral system to take on more features of our neighbors to the north are often made in The Bahamas as a general election nears. One such call is for political leaders to engage in debates, to reflect a more mature approach to electioneering by making themselves available for questioning on a national platform.
Debates have not traditionally been a part of our political culture, and we doubt they would change the minds of many voters, but is there value in them?
While the most closely watched political debates for most Bahamians are the US presidential debates, in our Caribbean sister country, Jamaica, debates have also become an important addition to campaign season.
The Jamaica Debates Commission (JDC) was formed in 2002 as a partnership between the Media Association Jamaica (MAJ) and the Jamaica Chamber of Commerce (JCC).
According to its website, the objective of the JDC in organizing debates was to assist in the strengthening and growth of the democratic process by encouraging and supporting the dissemination and discussion of political views in an open and unbiased manner, so as to enable the Jamaican electorate to make informed decisions.
The MAJ and JCC have equal representation on a six-person commission, with a rotating chairmanship. Individuals on the commission are given the title of commissioner and are supported by resource persons who provide the commission with additional skills and expertise. All positions are served on a voluntary basis and in 2019, the JDC was registered as a charitable organization.
The commission says political debates are important because they:
• Promote civil discourse
• Defuse political/partisan tensions
• Ensure a focus on issues
• Allow the public to compare political parties directly in the same forum
• Provide basis for accountability
The commission says key findings in polls conducted after general elections in Jamaica have shown that 67 percent of the general public believes that election debates should be mandatory, but only 30 percent changed their vote after watching the debates.
Seventy-eight percent said debates addressed their issues and 57 percent said debates helped them to decide. Forty percent of people of voting age said they had followed past political debates.
In 2016, the ruling People’s National Party (PNP) decided that it would not participate in the debates. The decision not to debate was highlighted and condemned by print and electronic media alike, and was widely discussed on talk shows and social media, the JDC noted.
The incumbent party lost elections by one seat in a surprising defeat. JDC commissioned an independent poll after the elections to check public reaction.
“Polling indicates that the electorate have found the debates useful in making their final voting choices,” the commission said.
United States
In the United States, there is a long tradition of political debates.
The modern debates date back to 1960 when Democratic nominee John F. Kennedy and Republican nominee Richard Nixon debated on national television.
The question of whether debates change minds about elections has been thoroughly addressed by various media and research arms in the US.
Ahead of the 2020 US presidential election, Fast Company, a monthly American business magazine, explored the issue as Donald Trump and Joe Biden prepared for their first debate.
In that article by Christopher Zara, the answer to the question of whether debates change minds was “it depends”.
Zara noted that polling data suggested that most voters had, in fact, made up their minds prior to the debates.
At the same time, the writer continued, past surveys have found that the majority of voters find debates at least somewhat useful in helping them decide which candidates to vote for.
In 2008, 67 percent of Americans said as much about the debates between Senator John McCain and then-Senator Barack Obama, according to Pew Research.
Zara added that more recent research suggests that debates have only a small impact when measured broadly across countries and voter segments.
In 2019, a study of 61 elections in nine countries by Harvard Business School found that most voters who change their mind about a candidate do so within two months before an election, but the presence of TV debates in those election cycles appears to have little effect on the percentage of voters who do that.
Addressing the same question, Poynter Institute concluded that debates don’t affect presidential elections by much, but they aren’t worthless.
In an article last September, Al Tompkins, a senior faculty member at Poynter, noted that Pew surveys going back to 1998 show voters find debates useful” in making their decisions, but not pivotal.
The writer quotes Harvard Business School, which says: “Every major polling outfit declared Clinton the debate’s victor the next day. But it didn’t make a difference: Trump went on to win the election. That’s because debates have only a negligible effect on voters’ candidate choice, according to new research from Harvard Business School. In fact, 72 percent of voters make up their minds more than two months before the election, often before candidates square off. And those who shift to a different candidate closer to the election don’t do it following TV debates.”
Tompkins noted Harvard Business School research mined voter surveys from 61 elections in nine countries – including the US, Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom – which included 172,000 respondents, 80 percent of whom had watched a debate.
Local debates
In The Bahamas, there is not a tradition of political debates, but a group – comprised of University of The Bahamas (UB) and Verizon Media professionals – is seeking to start a political culture shift. Verizon is the media company of businessman Sebas Bastian.
The group recently announced the National Debate Series for political parties with ratified candidates.
The National Election Debate Series Planning Committee said in a statement on Monday, “We are in an unprecedented era and the forthcoming general elections will be among the most historic. UB seeks to provide a neutral, impartial space for relevant, divergent views to be openly discussed.”
It advised that to date, seven of the eight political parties invited to participate in the debate series have confirmed participants for the youth debate, the first in the four-part series.
They are: Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), Democratic National Alliance (DNA), Bahamas Democratic Movement (BDM), Bahamas Constitution Party (BCP), Kingdom Government Movement (KGM), the People’s Movement (TPM) and Coalition of Independents.
The governing Free National Movement (FNM) has opted out of the debates, although the National Election Debate Series Planning Committee says the FNM, initially responded to the committee’s invitation by identifying a representative to participate in the youth debate.
FNM Chairman Carl Culmer said in a statement on Sunday, the FNM Campaign Committee observed “a number of critical defects” in the proposed format of the debates.
“Among the defects was, firstly, the fact that only one, for profit media house would be involved in producing the event, which was immediately considered to be unfair to other for profit media houses,” Culmer said.
“Secondly, upon review of the practices both in our Caribbean region and in Canada and the United Kingdom, it also became clear that the proposed format of the debates was a great departure from the standards set in other jurisdictions, each of which hails from the Westminster system.”
The chairman went on to elaborate on those “defects”, pointing out that Jamaica has an independent commission to plan debates.
Culmer added, “It is important to note that electoral debates in Jamaica and Canada only occur after Parliament has been dissolved and elections have been called.”
The planning committee fired back, stating, “In March and April 2017, the FNM participated in a series of thematic debates with an almost identical format to the series planned for May and June 2021.
It said, “This series is envisioned as an ideal opportunity to deepen democracy and engender robust and rigorous debate on important national issues, particularly for the benefit of the Bahamian electorate. This partnership will facilitate a wider, deeper breadth of coverage and a larger viewing audience.”
Damaging
While we believe the debate series will be more entertainment than substance for viewers, the FNM’s decision not to participate is a bad move politically, worsening the already widely held view that the Minnis administration has become haughty and continues to show a disregard for the citizenry.
Its reasoning – or more aptly termed, excuses – for not participating are not being discussed so much as the fact that it is too arrogant to participate.
This attitude goes against that expressed by Dr. Hubert Minnis when he was an opposition leader humbly seeking to replace an aloof government that had grown out of touch with voters.
In 2016, Minnis declared he was not afraid to debate then Prime Minister Perry Christie.
He told The Tribune that Christie’s refusal to debate was the prime minister “deflecting from the issues that are causing hurt and pain among Bahamians”.
Minnis said, “He must be made to answer those types of questions.
“He must answer the questions pertaining to why people don’t trust him and the government and the hundreds of questions waiting to be answered on the House of Assembly floor.”
If the FNM did genuinely have concerns with the “defects” of the format planned for the UB-Verizon Media debates, one would think those concerns would be expressed to the committee and some resolution reached.
But no one should be surprised that the FNM will not participate in the debates.
Certain promises relating to transparency and accountability made by Minnis before the last election have been abandoned.
To blame Hurricane Dorian and COVID-19 for that would be an insult to the electorate as the lack of commitment to those pledges had long been demonstrated before those twin crises arose.
Those commitments include quarterly press conferences by the prime minister, regular town hall meetings by MPs, the full enactment of the Freedom of Information Act, and regular updates from the prime minister’s press secretary.
The Minnis administration has also arrogantly refused to answer questions on the agenda of the House of Assembly – something the FNM repeatedly excoriated the Christie administration for.
When one looks at these kinds of issues Minnis highlighted in opposition and line them up against his record in office, it is easy to draw the conclusion that as prime minister, he has become the kind of leader he seemingly despised.
The post Bad optics appeared first on The Nassau Guardian.
source https://thenassauguardian.com/bad-optics/
No comments:
Post a Comment