As the issue of a leaders’ debate continues to attract the attention of the Debates Commission, it appears as though the rules for the debates will be the sticking point.
Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar made a very public announcement in March this year that she has every intention to engage in a leaders’ debate. That position has not changed.
However, what has changed is the position adopted by PNM leader Dr Keith Rowley. On April 20, the Guardian reported as follows:
“PNM chairman Franklyn Khan announced yesterday that Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley had written to the T&T Debates Commission and agreed to participate in the debates. ‘He has agreed in principle subject to the format and procedural discussions which will take place later on,’ Khan said in a press conference. Khan said Rowley was prepared to debate head-on with Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar. ‘Obviously you have to debate like with like, you cannot expect us to send our political leader to the debate and you don’t send your leader. There has to be match for match and parity in that debate. In other words, Dr Rowley will not debate Roodal Moonilal. Let us make it abundantly clear, he will only debate with the political leader. ‘CEO of the Debates Commission Catherine Kumar yesterday said both the PNM and the PP had agreed to two debates.’”
However, on May 17 instant, Newsday reported on a press briefing at PNM headquarters as follows:
“During the briefing, Khan also gave an update on the party’s position with respect to the proposed Leaders’ Debate. He said although Rowley had agreed to the debate, in principle, pending the rules of engagement, the party was concerned about the exclusion of certain political parties from the process. ‘We noted that the Debates Commission has certain benchmarks to qualify for the debate, which said you must get 12.5 per cent of the opinion poll support and you must be contesting 21 out of the 41 seats...The PNM does not want to be party to any position that excludes bonafide political parties and bonafide political leaders,’ Khan said.”
That is the critical aspect of this story. It was strange to see the Debates Commission attempting to bully the Prime Minister last week over the issue of the proposed leaders' debates. Her position has not changed. The Debates Commission seemed to be hinting last week that there were fears that the Prime Minister was going to back out of the debates.
Until such time as she actually makes such a comment, it would be foolhardy to speculate otherwise. The Debates Commission must demonstrate a greater sensitivity to the fact that the Prime Minister has a government to run and that spending time to sit down and discuss the format of a party political popularity contest that will have minimal effect on the lives of any citizen could wait until an election date is known.
The Debates Commission has no legal or constitutional right to organise any debate between party leaders. The Code of Political Conduct spoke about participation in a leaders' debate organised by “a Debates Commission,” not “the Debates Commission.”
That particular wording would suggest that there is no monopoly in organising any debate, although the Debates Commission is beginning to operate as if they have a monopoly on holding debates. There may very well be other providers whose criteria are not as politically skewed away from reality as theirs.
To suggest that the only participants to take part in the debates must be political parties that are fielding candidates in 21 constituencies or who can amass 12.5 per cent in an opinion poll is ludicrous. If you get an election that ends in a 20-20 outcome for two major political parties and there is one person from another party who won a seat but did not meet the criteria of the Debates Commission, that person could be appointed Prime Minister and would never have participated in any debate.
Such a situation happened in St Vincent in 1972 when James Mitchell was an independent and the two major parties were evenly divided. Our 17-17-2 and 18-18 situations are not far-fetched in relation to such a political reality.
In a recent appearance on the TV6 programme A Current Affair with Jabari Fraser on May 17, Ronald Harford and Angella Persad from the Debates Commission outlined the basic elements of the debate process.
On the very pertinent question about sponsorship of the debates that was raised by Fraser, there was an obvious dodge to the specific question of private sector sponsors who will donate to political parties and who will simultaneously sponsor the debates.
The Chamber of Commerce and its overlapping management and directors on the Debates Commission cannot evade Fraser’s question so easily.
There will be corporate entities who will help fund political parties and who will also give to the Debates Commission for the debate events.
Jabari Fraser’s question is highly relevant to the wider issue of campaign financing which may now be linked to debate sponsorship. What demands will such dual sponsors make?