WE HAVE HEARD IT ALL BEFORE!

Apr 20, 2011 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Does anyone seriously believe that Guyanese are swayed by what is said during the course of presidential campaigns between the various presidential candidates? How many Guyanese decide on how they will vote as a result of a presidential debate?
Most Guyanese already know how they will vote come Election Day this year. Nothing that the presidential candidates say is going to sway the voters into changing their minds. There may be the undecided, but their final decision will depend on more than just the outcome of a presidential debate.
In the run-up to the 1992 elections there was a presidential debate between Mr. Desmond Hoyte and Dr. Cheddi Jagan. Those who support the PNC felt that Hoyte won the debate, even though others felt that he came across as a grumpy and agitated old man who kept demanding from the PPP’s presidential candidate to state whether he was still a communist. The PPP supporters on the other hand felt that Jagan won the debate, even though some felt that he went on too long in answering his questions.
There was no use having any other debate, because the people had already decided how they were going to vote. No one debate is going to determine the outcome of an election.
That particular debate between Mr. Hoyte and Dr. Jagan was held on the radio. It was not televised. There was no live audience such as what happens presently. These days presidential debates are televised live to mass audiences. Unlike in Guyana, the studio audience is carefully screened and remains civil and respectful, as do the candidates to each other.
There is supposed to be a scheduled debate soon between the presidential candidates. It will not take the format of American presidential debates. It will not be televised live, nor will the audience be screened. It is being held at the University of Guyana, but it will not make a difference in swaying anyone. As such it is just an exercise in futility.
But the debate must be held because Guyana has to keep with the trend. The Americans have term limits, we must have them too. The Americans have presidential debates, we must have them too.
But unlike America, our presidential debate is not likely to be televised live and will most likely be witnessed by an audience who will be divided in partisan camps. The presidential candidates will attempt to debate each other, while the two camps in the audience will be trying to outdo each other. It promises to be rowdy and confusing.
The political lines have been drawn. The respective parties will have their people in the house. It makes for an interesting couple of hours, full of fun, but it will not sway voters because those who are there have already made up their minds where their X is going come Election Day, and no blunder made by any candidate is going to change that decision.
The debate however must go on. How can we have an election campaign without a debate? Unthinkable! Not that we have not had such debates before. We have! We have also had the distinction of debates marred by the absence of the presidential candidate of the ruling party; something that it is suspected has more to do with the hostility of the turf and the inability to deal with such hostility.
This is why, given Guyana’s realities, it would be much more preferred if there was a controlled debate without all the drama that is likely to take place at the University of Guyana this week.
At the end of this first debate, if a poll is taken, the results would be predictable as to who won the debate. The PNCR supporters will say that their candidate emerged victorious. The PPP supporters will disagree and say that their candidate came out ahead.
Since the candidates are not in a debating competition but are simply there to indicate their positions on issues so that the public at large can eventually make an informed choice come Election Day, these fora should not really have winners and losers.
Presidential debates in Guyana are for the converted. It allows them to root and cheer for their candidate and to put down the other. Such a divisive attitude defeats the purposes of a presidential debate, which has the advantage of allowing for issues rather than personalities to take centre stage.
For most of the political pundits, the debates are not about discussing issues but about ensuring that their candidate looks good and comes out the winner, even if that is their own estimation. So what purpose does a presidential debate serve? None whatsoever!
Guyanese do not need presidential debates to know what their candidates stand for. There is hardly a week that goes by – and as elections get nearer there will hardly be a day that goes by – without a candidate being quoted on some policy issue.
Whatever is said in the debates will therefore not be new. It will all have been said before.

---

---