The Debates Commission announced last week that it was looking forward to planning a Leaders’ Debate between Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley. This has created some controversy as the political leader of the Independent Liberal Party (ILP), Jack Warner, has queried why he is being left out.
This led to the Debates Commission revealing its criteria for inclusion in the leadership debates. These criteria are that a “party/alliance must demonstrate the potential to form the next government by nominating candidates to at least 50 per cent of the seats (21 seats) to contest the election or have registered a showing of at least 12.5 per cent of decided voters in two nationally recognised, independent opinion polls.”
One is only left to wonder what formula would have been used by the Debates Commission to arrive at these criteria. Where did they get the figure of 12.5 per cent in an opinion poll from? Do they seriously think that a party/alliance with 12.5 per cent support among decided voters in two nationally recognised, independent opinion polls will convert itself into majority support to form a government ?
The Debates Commission has to come better than that. They must demonstrate a level of transparency in demonstrating the methodology that they used to decide on the figure of 12.5 per cent. Additionally, what criteria will they use to decide whether an opinion poll is “independent” or not?
A party/alliance that fields 21 of 41 candidates has a marginal chance of forming the Government, but where did they form the view that a party with 12.5 per cent of opinion poll support could form the Government? They need to do some explaining, especially since they are going to judge the independence of opinion polls.
The key to credibility in opinion polls is the methodology, the sample size, the margin of error, and the demographic data. If a polling organisation has been hired in the past to conduct work for political parties, will that disqualify them from being considered “independent”?
One would have thought that the Debates Commission would have wanted to consider the credibility and/or reputation of a pollster, more so than their independence. All opinion polls strive to be credible and that is where they derive their independence from.
A pollster who is deemed to be “independent” but has a faulty methodology could pass the Debates Commission test. That is not a very good situation and they should revise their terminology and their criteria.
The last time they held a debate, they bent their own rules to allow the MSJ to participate. Now they have come up with new rules that are keeping the ILP out of the fray. Will they once again bend their own rules to accommodate the ILP?
One of the dangers of trying to copy ideas from metropolitan societies is that the hand cannot fit into the glove. The culture of having debates is a good one, but in small societies it is difficult to find anyone who can be trusted by all sides to be an honest broker.
In the THA election debate in January 2013, there was controversy about one leader taking notes during the debate. These are teething problems that have to be worked out.
Perhaps the biggest issue that has to be appreciated is the fact that the Debates Commission cannot be viewed as the only game in town.
There could be other providers who could be considered having regard to the fact that the Debates Commission is a creature of the Chamber of Commerce and may not be policy neutral.
The dual CEO of the Chamber and the Debates Commission, Catherine Kumar, ought to be very careful about making remarks that could convey political preferences or positions. She went into a discourse about fixed dates for election last week. That kind of lobbying ought to be avoided because it can compromise the supposed policy neutrality of the commission.
Of course, when she spoke, one would have to presume that she was speaking on behalf of the commission and advocating a policy position for which the commission was lobbying. Given her dual roles, was this also a policy desire of the Chamber of Commerce?
This particular topic could be the subject of one of the questions in the debate. It is absolutely unwise for any Debates Commission to be publicly demonstrating a public policy preference on any issue.
The Debates Commission wants participants to trust them to organise a fair debate. They should not advocate policy positions. Do they really think that their trust levels will be high if they continue like this? Any moderator that they put forward will be viewed with even more suspicion than might have been the case before the lobbying for fixed election dates was announced.
Between the absence of policy neutrality and the new rules for participation, the Debates Commission is placing itself in a very difficult place to be viewed as a non-partisan debate presenter. That is separate and apart from the partisanship of one of their directors on Good Friday as an activist outside the Parliament.