Tweet
Two Jamaicas Debating Debates
Published: Sunday | December 25, 20117 Comments
Daniel Thwaites, Contributor
Responses to the political debates have been even more predictable than most of the candidates' answers. Inevitably, we're told by the 'analysts' that there were too few specifics and that the whole affair was rather unexciting.
Surely, it occurred to the Jamaica Debates Commission that it would be very unlikely for the candidates to reach into details and specifics if they were given very short times to answer? If the cry is for more details, the cure is to lengthen the debates and allow more opportunity for the journalists to do follow-up questions.
There's no need to go on about who 'won' the debate, because it was obvious she did. Mind you, there is a class of Jamaicans for whom Mrs Simpson Miller can do nothing right. The reactions to her humorous 'Jamaican Queen' comment were instructive. The people downtown with whom I watched the debate erupted into laughter and appreciative cheers, whereas the uptowners on Facebook were immediately apoplectic with derision. I don't say for a moment that both sides aren't entitled to their reaction, but the starkness of the difference is notable.
The two debaters were, I think, speaking to different Jamaicas. I don't think we should celebrate that fact, but there's no point in denying it. When asked about the economy, Mr Holness' instinct was to talk about macroeconomic variables, while Mrs Simpson Miller went straight to jobs and the impact of the macroeconomy on people's lives.
One thing is for certain: had Mrs Simpson Miller completely lost her way in a question as Audley Shaw did, she would have been ridiculed forever about it. Shaw was so diverted by the need to 'trace' that when he wanted to return to the actual question posed, the questioner had to construct a billion-dollar bypass to save him from embarrassment. Similarly, Mr Holness, chief parliamentary blocker for Golding's follies, did a patent and practised evasion about being on "the extreme periphery" of the Manatt decisions that Portia would not have been afforded. Some informed follow-up questioning would have been explosive.
Serious questions
Still, overall I thought Franklyn McKnight and Dionne Jackson-Miller did excellent work. I do wish, however, that they had the opportunity to ask about some non-essential stuff. Both candidates have unique and interesting stories about how they ended up on that stage that the public likes to explore.
Even the most sophisticated audience doesn't just want technical questions about the economy and social issues. We also want to know more about these people, and more about why they do what they do. What are their basic instincts? What are their personalities? So many people and interest groups have a vested interest in manipulating their images, it would have been good to pierce through the veil of advertisements and public relations (both positive and negative).
There are other questions I would have wanted asked and answered in the same way that Trafigura resurfaced and the various positions were fully ventilated. Who paid Manatt, Phelps & Phillips? And as important as that is, it pales in comparison to the serious questions about the conduct of the Tivoli massacre. Would Mr Holness agree to an enquiry into the (avoidable) killing of at least 70-odd Jamaicans? Those questions deal with recent events. The other burning question, looking forward, is: What is the "bitter medicine"?
If the journalists had had more follow-up questions, I'm certain more substance would have emerged. For instance, what really underlies the prime minister's reluctance to renegotiate with the Chinese partners of Jamaica Development Infrastructure Programme to launch a massive work programme as suggested by the Opposition? It surely is not the "sanctity of contract", as Holness said. The same administration that boasts about the contractual breaching and renegotiation (debt default) known as the Jamaica Debt Exchange cannot suddenly be seized of the inviolability of contracts. There has to be another reason. As they now say in Central Manchester, right there the prime minister was "talking scrap"!
Given that both leaders were addressing different crowds, it makes Mrs Simpson Miller's refusal to endorse Bruce Golding's medieval and populist intolerance even more remarkable. I was shocked. As we all know, the country has been having an internal debate between people who have deeply held religious and moral views on the one hand, and people who worry about unnecessary cruelty and intolerance on the other.
One thing should be a given: responsible political leadership will repudiate gratuitous and unnecessary cruelty. If 'young' means progressive, modern, and willing to take a political risk, we can continue to await evidence of it from Mr Holness. Based on the debate, Portia is the younger of the two. She has already been sustaining some political wounds. The Rev Al Miller, the disarmed plum picker who most recently excited the public mind when he was arrested in the company of a cross-dressing criminal, has pronounced dismay.
Liberal tolerance
In terms of actually changing the law, that would be a larger debate. Jamaicans will have to consider and weigh their deeply held religious views against ideas of liberal tolerance which prize individual autonomy. Is it better government health and social policy to threaten homosexuals with social exclusion and jail, or is it more important to respect their privacy?
In a free country, we sometimes allow people to make decisions which we think are foolish, unhealthy, and even repulsive and immoral. Why? Because we may value the idea that men and women are free to choose their own lives, to develop their own personalities and characters, and to make their own mistakes. The law does not endorse promiscuity, smoking, drunkenness, or recklessness with one's health, nor does it make these illegal. A repudiation of intolerance is not an endorsement or an encouragement.
Daniel Thwaites is a partner of Thwaites, Lundgren & D'Arcy in New York, and currently qualifying for the Jamaican Bar. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.
Published: Sunday | December 25, 20117 Comments
Daniel Thwaites, Contributor
Responses to the political debates have been even more predictable than most of the candidates' answers. Inevitably, we're told by the 'analysts' that there were too few specifics and that the whole affair was rather unexciting.
Surely, it occurred to the Jamaica Debates Commission that it would be very unlikely for the candidates to reach into details and specifics if they were given very short times to answer? If the cry is for more details, the cure is to lengthen the debates and allow more opportunity for the journalists to do follow-up questions.
There's no need to go on about who 'won' the debate, because it was obvious she did. Mind you, there is a class of Jamaicans for whom Mrs Simpson Miller can do nothing right. The reactions to her humorous 'Jamaican Queen' comment were instructive. The people downtown with whom I watched the debate erupted into laughter and appreciative cheers, whereas the uptowners on Facebook were immediately apoplectic with derision. I don't say for a moment that both sides aren't entitled to their reaction, but the starkness of the difference is notable.
The two debaters were, I think, speaking to different Jamaicas. I don't think we should celebrate that fact, but there's no point in denying it. When asked about the economy, Mr Holness' instinct was to talk about macroeconomic variables, while Mrs Simpson Miller went straight to jobs and the impact of the macroeconomy on people's lives.
One thing is for certain: had Mrs Simpson Miller completely lost her way in a question as Audley Shaw did, she would have been ridiculed forever about it. Shaw was so diverted by the need to 'trace' that when he wanted to return to the actual question posed, the questioner had to construct a billion-dollar bypass to save him from embarrassment. Similarly, Mr Holness, chief parliamentary blocker for Golding's follies, did a patent and practised evasion about being on "the extreme periphery" of the Manatt decisions that Portia would not have been afforded. Some informed follow-up questioning would have been explosive.
Serious questions
Still, overall I thought Franklyn McKnight and Dionne Jackson-Miller did excellent work. I do wish, however, that they had the opportunity to ask about some non-essential stuff. Both candidates have unique and interesting stories about how they ended up on that stage that the public likes to explore.
Even the most sophisticated audience doesn't just want technical questions about the economy and social issues. We also want to know more about these people, and more about why they do what they do. What are their basic instincts? What are their personalities? So many people and interest groups have a vested interest in manipulating their images, it would have been good to pierce through the veil of advertisements and public relations (both positive and negative).
There are other questions I would have wanted asked and answered in the same way that Trafigura resurfaced and the various positions were fully ventilated. Who paid Manatt, Phelps & Phillips? And as important as that is, it pales in comparison to the serious questions about the conduct of the Tivoli massacre. Would Mr Holness agree to an enquiry into the (avoidable) killing of at least 70-odd Jamaicans? Those questions deal with recent events. The other burning question, looking forward, is: What is the "bitter medicine"?
If the journalists had had more follow-up questions, I'm certain more substance would have emerged. For instance, what really underlies the prime minister's reluctance to renegotiate with the Chinese partners of Jamaica Development Infrastructure Programme to launch a massive work programme as suggested by the Opposition? It surely is not the "sanctity of contract", as Holness said. The same administration that boasts about the contractual breaching and renegotiation (debt default) known as the Jamaica Debt Exchange cannot suddenly be seized of the inviolability of contracts. There has to be another reason. As they now say in Central Manchester, right there the prime minister was "talking scrap"!
Given that both leaders were addressing different crowds, it makes Mrs Simpson Miller's refusal to endorse Bruce Golding's medieval and populist intolerance even more remarkable. I was shocked. As we all know, the country has been having an internal debate between people who have deeply held religious and moral views on the one hand, and people who worry about unnecessary cruelty and intolerance on the other.
One thing should be a given: responsible political leadership will repudiate gratuitous and unnecessary cruelty. If 'young' means progressive, modern, and willing to take a political risk, we can continue to await evidence of it from Mr Holness. Based on the debate, Portia is the younger of the two. She has already been sustaining some political wounds. The Rev Al Miller, the disarmed plum picker who most recently excited the public mind when he was arrested in the company of a cross-dressing criminal, has pronounced dismay.
Liberal tolerance
In terms of actually changing the law, that would be a larger debate. Jamaicans will have to consider and weigh their deeply held religious views against ideas of liberal tolerance which prize individual autonomy. Is it better government health and social policy to threaten homosexuals with social exclusion and jail, or is it more important to respect their privacy?
In a free country, we sometimes allow people to make decisions which we think are foolish, unhealthy, and even repulsive and immoral. Why? Because we may value the idea that men and women are free to choose their own lives, to develop their own personalities and characters, and to make their own mistakes. The law does not endorse promiscuity, smoking, drunkenness, or recklessness with one's health, nor does it make these illegal. A repudiation of intolerance is not an endorsement or an encouragement.
Daniel Thwaites is a partner of Thwaites, Lundgren & D'Arcy in New York, and currently qualifying for the Jamaican Bar. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.
Comment