We have national elections every five years or less in Jamaica. It is a special event, which should stir up national interests nationally. Street meetings and motorcades across the island take on a carnival-type atmosphere. People in buses, trucks, cars, and motorbikes with people on the street gyrating to mainly religious and revival-type songs. The atmosphere is electrifying and sometimes highly charged emotionally.
We seemed to have neutered and decapitated the gangs at last. Their influence on political activities has diminished and is probably nonexistent. This has a positive impact on the political campaigning. I saw videos of JLP and PNP persons dancing together, and JLP and PNP on top of a car waving their flags. I also saw a video with the PM welcoming and hugging up some PNP folks who were proudly wearing their PNP shirts. In one instance, I saw the PNP supporters taking pictures with the prime minister.
We have television debates as part of the process. Based on what I saw during the first general election debate of 2025, I ask myself, what is the purpose of these debates?
As a citizen, I don't believe the debate added anything to the election. The debate came across like a new form of a press conference. We copied the format from our friends up north, with a few changes added. This was reinforced in my mind with the questions asked by journalists and questions from social media. The time limit given and how it was exercised negatively impacted the development of the speakers' points
I would prefer for the first debate to have two members from the major parties. The moot could be, "Should the JLP Get a Third Term in Office?" The studio audience should be given time to react to the presentations. If there are disruptions, then the offenders should be escorted from the studio.
The speakers had no personality to speak about, no wit, and they were not dynamic. Some of them looked very stoic while making their presentation. I was not left with any memorable statement that could take on a life of its own during the campaign.
Was this debate just another way of making money for the media houses? Sorry, it did not have an ounce of influence on me. Another sad thing is that the organizers did not cater to the hearing-impaired.
Voters should remember that debates are useful in helping us to understand issues, but sweet talk cannot build a country. I would suggest that those who are in politics spend some time listening to speeches made by former prime ministers Edward Seaga and Michael Manley. Your timing, your pathos, the tone of your voice, your facial expressions, and your body language can also send a very strong message to your audience.
 |
| Click here to answer the questions on the election debate questionnaire. |
 |
| Janella Precius was an excellent timekeeper. |
 |
| Pearnel Charles Jr. was too cool. |
 |
| Damian Crawford is a good speaker with more fluff than substance. |
 |
| Kamika Johnson is beautiful to look at, but she is not a dynamic speaker. |
 |
| Mathew Samuda made some good points, but he looked stoic. |
 |
| Sophia Fraser-Binns was very strident, but she needs to look more appealing to the audience. |
 |
| I forgot that Raymond Pryce was on the team. |
 |
| The missing audience. |
Click the icon below and join a group of people who want to learn more about the prostate.
 |
| Click here to join a WhatsApp broadcast group. |
 |
| Click here to see what's happening. |
_________________Subscribe Now!
Remember that Bark Di Trute could fail to bark one day without your support. Send your ideas, stories, and news by WhatsApp at (876) 816-5261.
You can view the blog on your computer at https://vderby.blogspot.com, and you will be able to see the various links. For example, there is a link that takes you to the calendar so you can see what is happening on the weekend. You can even search the site for articles.
_________________
Mr. Samuda was best prepared but still lacking. I got more laughter than substance....lol
ReplyDeleteThe political representatives don't take the debates seriously enough. It's a total joke to them and it was quite clear some were underprepared for it. Sixty percent or more of the time given to answer questions was spent chiding the opposing team. Probably because they didn't have the answers. Many responses had nothing to do with the questions.
ReplyDeleteIt is meant to be a platform to discuss the burning issues the people consider to be important to them going forward, not to cast blame for the past. Track record is important, but these debates are about the manifestos— the future. To expound on them and to address issues not considered in the manifestos. In my opinion, Mrs. Binns was the most impressive speaker. Mr. Samuda batted a few innings well, but there is plenty room for improvement overall.
Many Jamaicans don't understand how a debate should be conducted as you see it. They think the more jabs you make at your opponent then you're the better debater. So the schoolgirl, tracing behaviour of Raymond Pryce is seen as element of a good debate, even if he doesn't answer the question.
DeleteAdditionally, Pearnell Charles Jr. was woefully lacking and Damian was lacking in substance. I agree with you, the 2 best performers were Mr. Samuda and Mrs Frazer-Binns, though she seemed ignorant of the Beach Control Act. Additionally, their questions to the opposing team were misplaced.