THE much publicised National Political Debate was anything but a debate. There was no moot. The traditional debate format was sidelined and the times allotted to each participant precluded meaningful arguments. Using cricket terminology some expected a Test match; instead we got treated to a "bat-up and catch" game played with a tennis ball on a beach pitch.

THE PANEL

The panel was not impressive with Dr. Trevor Munroe, university lecturer and Independent Senator, being assigned to Prime Minister P.J. Patterson, and Moya Thomas, news editor at Radio Jamaica being assigned to Leader of the Opposition Edward Seaga. However, Dr. Munroe's questions seemed targeted toward Edward Seaga more than to P.J. Patterson. For example:

Leadership style: Team vs one-man band;

Presence of gunmen: With one representing the mother of all garrisons, the other the father of all country constituencies.

Thomas not to be left out, chimed in with a question on:

Free Education: The JLP's newly extended concept with the PNP questioning the affordability of the exercise.

THE MODERATOR

A poor performance of a relatively simple role. Not once, but twice, Ian Boyne did not call upon Mr. Patterson to respond immediately after Mr. Seaga's reply. This gave the impression that the question had no relevance to Patterson (who correctly intoned that maybe it was merely academic). More importantly, it allowed more time for Patterson to consider and craft his response.

THE PERFORMERS

Both studiously avoided direct answers to some questions. For example:

On the strength of the opponent: Seaga's response was that the PNP was strong on politics. Patterson's response was that the founding fathers created a system that required a strong opposition. The JLP has fulfilled this role admirably.

Leadership and Succession: Patterson stated clearly that he did not intend to answer that question directly. On the aspect of the timing of his departure, an indefinite condition was offered "Everything which needs to be done has been done to ensure smooth succession", "When the right times comes", "When constitutional change and economic reforms are in place."

Seaga's response was equally baffling. Though senior to Patterson in age, by some spurious logic came to the view that Patterson's time was as limited as his own. On the departure date, his conditions were the foundations for building one Jamaica and constitutional change. As Seaga has been talking about two Jamaicas for approximately 40 years, it is likely that the changing of the status quo will take a considerable period of time.

Both served up some incredulous answers. For example:

Awareness of the presence of gunmen: Patterson sought to give the impression that he was not aware of any in his presence. Seaga answered "definitely NO".

Both have played central roles in Jamaican politics for over 30 years. Both PNP and JLP have political garrisons and were involved in the 1980 civil war. Perhaps the question assumed that an illegal gun can be identified on sight. As a matter of law, the firearm is illegal if the person in possession has no licence for such. Then again, perhaps politicians can only see gunmen of the opposing side.

Blame for loss: Seaga gave the impression that he was about to give a one-word response. I expected him to say "Seaga". However, he would place the blame on a scarcity of funds to energise its campaign on the air. Unless, one is politically deaf and blind, the JLP has been mounting a vigorous campaign in the mass media.

ON PATTERSON

P.J. Patterson was definitely better prepared and once again demonstrated that he is a crafty and cunning political animal. For example:

Incorporating political barbs in his responses:

1. My way is the way of peace and harmony;

2. Bruce Golding's critique of the JLP's team;

3. Some failed to pay debts or forgot to pay debts;

4. What you voting for? M.O.U. or manifesto or both?

5. Many in his party understand complex matters.

Baiting of Seaga on the corruption issue: Patterson put forward the view that in every instance "appropriate action" has been taken. He described the events as "mis-management in honest decision-making". Seaga did not take the bait. Patterson seemed to be lurking with the set-bat rebuttal that a JLP Minister was the only politician sent to jail on corruption charges.

Ambush in the night: Knowing fully well that the JLP had been getting traction on Free Education Patterson comes armed with fresh figures obtained that same day from the Minister of Education. Seaga had purportedly relied on figures issued by the Ministry of Education; Patterson offered to share the newly acquired information sometime later. Seaga is ambushed and reacted angrily. This occasions a turn in the tenor of Seaga's participation.

ON SEAGA

Seaga opened his innings comfortably - playing some elegant strokes. After the ambush, Seaga changed his style and started to "yam-lick". He seemingly abandoned his prepared script, looked straight into the camera, spoke pointedly drawing on all his political experience to close with a platform speech.

FINAL COMMENTS

Some would say that "dem bait up Seaga"; some would go further and say "dem beat up Seaga". It certainly was no presidential debate. Returning to the cricket terminology: