Charlene Sharpe-Pryce, Contributor

Sharpe-Pryce

The first of the three televised national political debates can be analysed focussing on the appearance of the candidates and/or the substance of their statements as they placed their party's position on critical issues under the microscope for scrutiny.

The candidates appeared relatively relaxed and prepared to do battle. Dr. Phillips' experience and command of the issues gave him an edge, in my opinion, as he was able to manage his time more efficiently than Dr. Baugh, thus articulating his party's stance more effectively.

All this being said, I believe the formatting and structure of the debates created unfair advantages/disadvantages to the candidates. The debate also lacked the level of interaction desired between the candidates needed to bring further clarity to the issues on the campaign platform, thus the debate contributed little to what would have been said before on the campaign trail.

I don't think it was the wisest use of time by the questioners, who did very well, to try to cram as many social issues as possible within the 90 minutes allotted, given that the main purpose of the debate is to raise issues of interest to the potential voters.

The most important question asked, in my opinion, hinged on what would constitute the priority areas of whoever forms the next government (the six-month agenda). Given the complexity and far-reaching impact of violent crime on Jamaica, crime and violence should have been at least number two on the priority lists. This was not so. Equally, social issues can only be addressed effectively if governance issues and measures to eradicate corruption are clearly articulated, again, the discussion on this was evasive and found wanting.

Charlene Sharpe-Pryce is a lecturer at Northern Caribbean University.