AT A time when the election campaign is near its full height, the leaders of our two major political parties took to the podium at the CPTC last week in the 2002 National Election Debates.

Thursday's encounter between PNP President, P.J. Patterson and JLP Leader, Edward Seaga, was too short and appeared too inflexible in format for an adequate airing of critical campaign issues and positions. But, in a campaign dominated so far by catchy tunes and entertaining commercials, the debates were useful in taking us beyond personalised advertising and party slogans.

My assessment is that Mr. Patterson had the better of Thursday's debate and that the JLP team of Bruce Golding and Audley Shaw narrowly out-performed the PNP's Omar Davies and Burchell Whiteman in the first debate last week Tuesday, focusing on economic and social development issues. The absence of representatives from the UPP and the NJA/NDM was disappointing and raised questions about exclusion and the scope of issues likely to be aired.

Of the two leaders, Mr. Seaga had the more effective opening presentation in which he criticised the Government on issues of economic growth, unemployment and on weaknesses in the education sector. He scored well on tough questions about corruption and about any possible coalition Government. Mr. Patterson's presentation started much slower but he recovered ground after the second break and took charge with detailed information about economic stability, improvements in education, poverty reduction and good governance, using quotes, figures and arguments. The PNP leader also ended with the better rebuttal and stronger closing remarks. Both leaders appeared to have been taken aback by two sharp questions from the interviewing panel. In the first place, they were asked whether they had ever seen a party supporter with an illegal weapon and what they were doing to detach violent elements from their respective campaigns. Both of leaders denied that they had ever seen an illegal gun in the hand of a supporter. Mr. Patterson added that he may suspect that such weapons could be present, but had never witnessed such a thing in his presence. Mr. Seaga said that it was difficult to police a large party for such weapons, but that leaders must continue to preach peace among their supporters. Their answers were predictable and open to further probing which was not allowed within the stiff format agreed on for the debate.

In another question, each leader was asked to state the strengths of his opponent. This had both of them on the back foot, trying to cope with a tough delivery. Mr. Seaga enquired why he wasn't being asked about the strengths of the JLP, but eventually conceded that the PNP had strong political skills in their party. However, he said these strengths may also be weaknesses for the country as a whole. Mr. Patterson took quite a while to come to the point, but eventually said the JLP had a rich political tradition left by its founding fathers, and that the JLP, as Opposition, had also contributed actively to the workings of the system of parliamentary committees which the Government had expanded. This was a very sobering question for the leaders. Their initially faltering remarks showed that especially at this time, party leaders are reluctant to come to terms with the positives on the opposite side.

Both leaders had a quarrel over Education, with differing figures on funding for new and traditional high schools. Clearly education is still a hot issue in this campaign. Mr. Patterson, in countering Mr. Seaga's arguments on education funding produced Ministry of Education figures to support the Government's position that new secondary schools, such as Tivoli High, got about the same or only marginally less funding than the well established high schools, such as Campion College.

Mr. Seaga insisted on his own numbers, which he said also came from the Ministry of Education. The accuracy of these claims should not be too difficult to establish, and is a matter that should be pursued in search of the truth.

Mr. Seaga was straightforward in rejecting a suggestion about including persons from the other parties in a future Cabinet. However, his point about the possibility of weakening the Opposition to strengthen the Government needed to take more into account the aspect of the question dealing with drawing on civil society as well. Mr. Patterson, while wanting to defer consideration of this matter until after the election, raised the issue of including non party people in what he called the 'legislative process', presumably the Senate.

The JLP Leader seemed comfortable with the question on plugging leaks in the system for award of contracts, taking the opportunity once again to underscore the important role of the Contractor-General. Mr. Patterson appeared pleased to respond to the one about democracy in party leadership by rejecting any suggestion of being a 'one-man band'. But we needed a stronger response from both about these issues.

However, the responses that offered greatest insight into the thinking of the two leaders were the ones to a question about when they will step down as leaders. The PNP Leader did not resist the temptation to needle Mr. Seaga about having possible successors 'who understood complex issues', in a not too veiled reference to previous utterances of Mr. Seaga. Overall, however, the responses to this question suggested that although both elderly leaders say themselves as having 'limited time' left, the winner will be unlikely to step down anytime soon after the election.

Mr. Patterson listed a four-point set of 'unfinished tasks' to be accomplished before he goes, and Mr. Seaga identified 'a mission' to create what he called 'One Jamaica' as well work he still wishes to do on constitutional reform. All these could take a long time. It appears that the majority of the next term in office will be under the existing leader, and not under the new younger leadership currently waiting in the wings. It will be interesting to see what happens to the losing party leader, and a follow-up question on this would have been well placed in the debate.

As in all such encounters, body language is an important indicator of the mood of the participants. Both leaders initially appeared anxious, and overshot the allowed time for their opening statements. Mr. Patterson looked particularly tense, but he got back into his stride early and was stronger towards the end. Mr. Seaga was forthright but not as aggressive in this debate as he can often be, and appeared a bit irritated close to the end. All of his rebuttal time was taken up with a reply on the issue of education. In the end, the two leaders shook hands to close what was an important part of the public dialogue about the country's future.

The debate by the party leaders, the second in a two part series of election debates was more lively but not as informative as the previous one with second level party leaders. The eight questions posed by Professor Trevor Munroe and journalist Ms. Moya Thomas were pointed and provocative and sometimes placed the leaders in a spot. Many of the questions in the previous debate on Tuesday suffered from too long a preamble, reducing the focus and impact.

The overall time allowed for the debate (50 minutes when the commercials are taken into account) appeared too short for the leaders to really develop the issues raised and the format of the debate still needs to be made more flexible. The principal organisers of the event, the Chamber of Commerce and media Association had a difficult time securing agreement on the panel and on the demands of the debaters. That they have succeeded in putting on a debate is to their credit and hard work. However, in the future an overall duration of 90 minutes, a three-person panel with follow-up questions and a pro-active role for the moderator could all help to make the debate even more interesting and meaningful.

Dr. Hopeton Dunn is a senior lecturer in media and communication at the UWI, Mona.