It’s time for debate
By Ian G. Strachan
I have said it before and I say it again here: the political directorate is lagging behind the people. They are no longer leading the people, they are no longer in front of the people, clearing the way, cutting a path, leading by example, inspiring and mobilizing them. No. Instead they are behind the people. More backward than the people. More afraid than the people. More reluctant to change than the people. Less open-minded than the people. Less prepared to have an honest, frank discussion than the people. Less prepared to ‘put all their cards on the table’ than the people.
I don’t pretend that Bahamians have it all together and are not themselves victims of inferiority complexes, phobias, or crippling fundamentalisms. I don’t pretend for instance that Ingraham is more backward than the people because he opposes the death penalty. No, I don’t mean that our leaders are behind the people in every sense. But I do mean it in one very, very important sense. What I am saying is that the people are ready for a deeper version of our democracy; the people are ready to be included more fully in the processes of governance; and the politicians do not want this. I say ‘the politicians’, but that is not precise. The leaders of the parties don’t want democracy deepened – not the pace or in a fashion that could weaken their advantages, their privileges. I can see Hubert Ingraham now smiling at my contention and reminding me that he liberated the airwaves. I smile back and I am not moved.
Why debates are needed
I could speak to the fact that our political parties have lifetime voting delegates (a corrupt practice that perverts democracy and brings a suffocating determinism to our politics). But instead I will discuss something so much smaller than that and yet so crucial to this moment in our history. The small but telling example I offer is the notion of a national debate between the leaders, broadcast live on radio and television, where the questions (although pre-approved) are delivered by members of the media and civil society. And where follow-up questions are allowed. A simple enough proposition. But apparently, out of the question.
No doubt, political junkies in this country have watched with a mixture of curiosity and amusement the nauseous Republican debates. The party is struggling to find its alternative to Barack Obama. The Republicans have decided that a gutted, paralyzed, starving America is better than a prosperous America led by a Negro. So be it.
Here, we are being asked to choose between two men who have been in Parliament for more than 30 years, who pretend to be rivals but are actually blood brothers, Ingraham and Christie. What difference will it really make in terms of policy, which one we pick? And yes, we are also asked to consider newcomer Bran McCartney and the Democratic National Alliance (DNA). But could we not save precious money and time by limiting the number of carnivalesque political ‘rallies’ we are subjected to over the next few months? Wouldn’t it be wiser, safer (in terms of the bad behavior that follows these drunken rallies) and more efficient to hold three properly planned and organized debates between these three rivals? A commission should be established to organize and execute just such debates in the interest of our democracy.
In the U.S. they have something called the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). According to its webpage, it “was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners.
“Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008.
“To meet its ongoing goal of educating voters, the CPD is engaged in various activities beyond producing and sponsoring presidential debates. Its staff prepares educational materials and conducts research to improve the quality of debates. Further, the CPD provides technical assistance to emerging democracies and others interested in establishing debate traditions in their countries. In recent years, the staff worked with groups from Bosnia, Burundi, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Haiti, Jamaica, Lebanon, Niger, Nigeria, Peru, Romania, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, and the Ukraine, among others. Finally, the CPD coordinates post-debate symposia and research after many of its presidential forums.”
Now, to be fair, the political directorate of The Bahamas is no different from the directorate in America in this crucial way: they will do everything in their power to control, modulate and contain political processes as much as possible to ensure that they obtain a favorable result. A favorable result being: they remain in power or share power with as few as possible.
It should be noted that the CPD is co-chaired by two agents of the Republican and Democratic parties, Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael McCurry. Fahrenkopf is a former chairman of the GOP and Michael D. McCurry was Bill Clinton’s press secretary. The honorary co-chairmen of the commission are listed on the website as Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and William J. Clinton. How you can have two honorary co-chairmen who are dead beats me (Ford and Reagan).
You can well imagine that if the Dems and Republicans run the commission itself, then third party candidates and independents will be marginalized – much in the same manner as Dr. Bernard Nottage, then leader of the now defunct Coalition for Democratic Reform, was excluded from a debate on Charles Carter’s 102.9FM between Perry Christie and Tommy Turnquest in the run-up to the 2002 election.
Public pressure on issue is needed
Power and privilege perpetuate themselves. Different elements of the establishment collaborate to exclude those who threaten the order of things – even if the threat is slight. So the political directorate, political financiers and media houses work together. This is true in America and true in The Bahamas. In the case of the current search for a Republican candidate, it is worth noting that moderate candidate and former governor of Louisiana, Buddy Roemer, has been completely excluded from the debates of the Republican Party while people with nowhere near his credibility and competence – like Herman Cain – have been included. The Republican debates are not controlled by the CPD but (ostensibly) by the sponsors; still, the filtering takes place. The reason: Roemer is anti-establishment. He wants to take money out of electoral politics. Roemer said, “Even when I garner the required one percent needed to qualify, Fox News has decided to exclude me. I am the only candidate who has been a congressman and a governor, but apparently that is not good enough for the debate sponsors.”
So even if we create a system of debates for our elections we must be vigilant to ensure fair play and to ensure that vested interests do not hijack what is intended to be an open-ended process in which the best ideas and the best man or woman in the eyes of the public, emerge.
An organization has been created to challenge the practices of the CPD in America, called Open Debates. According to its website: “Open Debates is a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization working to reform the presidential debates so that they better serve the interests of the American people. Currently, the presidential debates are secretly controlled by the Republican and Democratic parties, through a private corporation called the Commission on Presidential Debates. As a result, challenging formats and popular independent candidates are often excluded from the debates.
“Open Debates is engaged in multiple campaigns to inform the public, the news media and policy makers about the antidemocratic conduct of the Commission on Presidential Debates. Open Debates is also promoting an alternative presidential debate sponsor – the nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission – which is comprised of national civic leaders committed to maximizing voter education.”
I cannot pretend that a series of debates will heal all that ails our political system, and all that is wrong with our elections. I cannot pretend that debates would be sufficient to create an informed and empowered populace or straight talking leaders who are prepared to put the public good first in every instance. What I am prepared to say is that debates will add much more value to our electoral process than what is currently extant.
But Ingraham and Christie refuse to debate each other. And they certainly won’t agree to debate with McCartney. This is unacceptable in 2011. Unacceptable. The true disgrace, though, is not that these two men agree together not to challenge each other to a debate, the true disgrace is that their political parties, made up of every class of Bahamian, refuse to insist upon the same for the benefit and edification of the nation.
I therefore call on the head of the Chamber of Commerce, the Christian Council, the president of the College of The Bahamas, the publishers of The Tribune, Guardian and Bahama Journal, and the chief executive officer of every other media outlet, to convene a meeting on behalf of the people whom they serve to discuss a debates protocol. They must devise a format for these debates. Obviously the American Embassy can assist, if for some reason we think we don’t have the wherewithal to plan these ourselves. Once the plan is prepared it should be presented to the public and to the prime minister and the leader of the opposition. If these civic leaders do not rise to the occasion and insist that the Free National Movement (FNM) and Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) rise as well, they too must be indicted by history.
If Ingraham and Christie reject this plan (I can’t imagine McCartney rejecting it since he has the most to gain), then we will leave them to the public to judge and deal with accordingly on election day.
Dec 05, 2011
