The Tribune

General elections loom ahead with no firm date, though the current administration promised fixed election dates and fixed terms for Prime Ministers in its 2017 campaign, and debates are being organized.

This is not the first time for a debate initiative. In the last election season, University of The Bahamas hosted a well-organised debate series that should have had large attendance. There were set questions and people in the audience submitted questions from which organisers made selections.

It was a good opportunity to hear what the political parties wanted to say about the topic raised. This time, University of The Bahamas is collaborating with Verizon Media Group to organise a debate series with seven parties confirmed as participants. The Free National Movement (FNM), after initially agreeing to participate, has decided to withdraw. FNM chairman Carl Culmer has provided a laughable set of excuses for the party’s decision.

Culmer said: “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.” This would suggest that other media houses will not be able to cover the debate series, but that is not the case.

In its response, the University of The Bahamas and Verizon Media Group noted other media houses were contacted and the series has been promoted through these channels. The FNM, then, is trying to create a problem where there is none.

The statement issued by Culmer also noted differences between the planned debate series and those that take place in Canada and Jamaica which have completely different geographic and political landscapes. Given the points raised, it is clear the FNM would like to limit participation in the debates, locking out parties that do not already have any sitting members in Parliament. It is clearly threatened by the number of parties and candidates vying for election and is insecure in its ability to put forward candidates with the ability to even respond to questions provided in advance, much less respond to challenges.

On one hand, it is easy to laugh at the FNM and its cowardice. On the other, it is troubling to recognise that this is the current administration. It has performed terribly, ignored its own promises, failed to adequately respond to crises and support the people most in need, and yet dares to seek re-election without participating in an important exercise designed to give the general public better access to its plans and ways of thinking.

We have seen for ourselves that Minnis considers himself above reproach and is offended by the very idea of being questioned or expected to explain his actions.

The FNM is clearly comfortable with and complicit in this approach. It is behaving like a spoiled brat who does not want certain people to be invited to the festivities. It intends to give the public the impression it is above the others, but the message we are receiving is that it is not prepared to be measured against others due to its misgivings about its own capacity.

We are accustomed to an electoral system that does not serve us. We are used to election seasons that are full of popular music, catchy slogans, poster pollution, crowded rallies and free t-shirts.

We have developed a love-hate relationship with the season and the people who drive it. It is annoying, embarrassing and unproductive, but it is also hilarious and entertaining. We watch as money and time are wasted, listen to one-liner after one-liner that will amount to nothing, and some of us wait for the opportunity to trade our votes for something of much less value. Flyers are stuck in our doors, people try to feed us propaganda and we try to get a candidate — any candidate — to cut down the bush across the street.

There always seems to be so little time. Campaigners are in a rush and so are we. There is no time to delve into the issues, is there? Can we really talk about what a candidate or party intends to do to reduce crime? Does it even make sense to listen to the fairytales, knowing we have been through this five years ago, ten years ago, and 15 years ago, and we have seen no change?

We do not need to hear another person talk about providing more jobs, putting more money into education, or getting rid of whomever is to blame for the current state of affairs.

We need to get beyond the bold print on those flyers. We need to hear the assessment of the situation. More jobs? Okay, how do we know the lack of jobs is the problem? Could it not be the low wages, difficulty meeting requirements, or lack of transportation during certain hours?

We need evidence that the problem a candidate or party is promising to solve is actually the problem that needs our attention. Beyond assessment, we need to hear the how. More jobs sounds great, but where will they come from, who will qualify, what will it cost, and what is the timeline?

We do not all have the time or the desire to talk to candidates. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is definitely not safe or easy to do.

The debate series presents an opportunity for the electorate to get a better understanding of party values and priorities. We know we will get generic talking points, but we will have the ability to compare answers and pinpoint differences. Reporters can zero in on statements and follow up after the event. The general public can bring up important points when they are engaged by campaigners. We will see how and when other members of parties contradict what the debaters say on stage.

The debate series is an opportunity to get more information — comparable information — that can help us to decide where we will mark our Xs.

A political party that refuses to participate is one that does not respect the electorate. The excuses are unacceptable. There is no reason to avoid answering questions about political positions and plans for governance. Candidates ought to be prepared, at any time and in any setting, to speak to people — whether they are in support, in opposition, or neutral — about the political agenda. If they cannot meet this expectation, we cannot believe they are equipped for the duty of governance.

Things to do because you care

1. Support non-governmental organisations in St. Vincent and the Grenadines in their relief efforts as La Soufrière continues to erupt. The ash fall and pyroclastic flows have displaced over 20,000 people. Red Root SVG and Rise Up Bequia are on the ground, providing support to families and shelters. Donate at tinyurl.com/redrootrelief and tinyurl.com/reliefrise.

2. Get bystander intervention training so you are equipped to help when you see someone experience harassment or violence. Equality Bahamas offers training several times per year and upon request for groups. Email equalitybahamas@gmail.com.

3. Get vaccinated. It reduces the risk of getting COVID-19, having serious illness if you do get COVID-19, and spreading COVID-19 to others. Vaccines do not 100 percent protect against diseases, but reduce the risk and the severity of symptoms. This vaccine is no different. Do it for yourself and the people around you.