Stephen Vasciannie

You can tell that elections are coming. The people who call talk shows to put forward the perspectives of their parties are out in their numbers. So, if you listen to the usual programmes, you will hear the set pieces. Sometimes the set pieces provide an indication of positions that parties are reluctant to embrace as official, manifesto-style policy prescriptions, but they are interesting all the same.

Take the latest argument about a possible State of Emergency. The Commissioner of Police makes a statement about the possibility of increased violence in the next elections. This is taken by some to mean that the Government is preparing the ground for a State of Emergency. For this to be plausible, the Police Commissioner will have to get some type of agreement with the Minister of National Security about an emergency declaration, and the Cabinet has to be in on the deal.

There really is no evidence of this, but it is presented as a possibility. And to support this possibility, events in 1976 are repeated with great clarity. And, to further support this possibility, it may be mentioned that the Commissioner has not denied the idea that a State of Emergency is coming. Quad erat demonstrandum, declare the emergency team. If you take a sceptical view of this line of reasoning, you are, of course, ridiculed as naive, or it is said that you are a partisan.

Some defenders of this line of approach may rely on the line of pre-emptive attack. The argument is that the Government is always watching for an opening to declare a State of Emergency, and once we drop our vigilance, the Government will spring into action, locking up political adversaries, censoring the media, and prohibiting forms of opposition activity. The argument does not take into account the fact that, notwithstanding Jamaica's extremely violent crime environment throughout the 1990s, the only State of Emergency called was the one associated with the onset of Hurricane Ivan.

Repeat Callers

Then there are repeat callers who personalise the talk-show discourse. This is done, I believe, in an attempt to undermine the credibility of particular talk-show hosts, and to engender the view that you simply cannot trust those hosts. Sometimes, it seems, a certain show is targeted, but I cannot say whether this is part of a central strategy, or whether it reflects the personal feelings of one or two repeat callers.

Controversy

Another aspect of talk-show politics is to promote controversy for its own sake. We have quite a few masters of this. From the corporate viewpoint, this is good radio. It is presumed, perhaps correctly, that listeners want argument. And probably for that reason, some of those who are inclined to regard radio primarily for educational purposes, have recently fallen by the wayside.

All of this is part of a healthy democracy. It forces the Government to be attentive to what people are saying about their policies and about the implementation of their policies. At the same time, it provides entities and persons critical of the Government with the opportunity to test their ideas and to highlight their own perspectives on current issues.

Naturally, though, there is room for improvement. The same callers repeat themselves ad nauseam on some shows, prompting boredom. Some stations have weak signals so that listening is not always easy. Some hosts adopt an oversimplified perspective on economic issues, shining no light on issues of development. Others - far too many - seem to ignore the drug realities of Jamaica (not to mention Latin America and the Caribbean). And, too many programmes are dedicated to short-term issues: news today, fishpaper tomorrow.