THE DEBATES between representatives of the two major political parties provided very little in the way of new information. Both events came across as very stilted, evidently strait-jacketed by a preoccupation with format. Missing was any semblance of debate with several questions left unanswered by the participants and rebuttal of each other's arguments.

For example in the first debate last Tuesday neither side responded to a question on their party's position on the controversial issue of hanging. Overall the opportunity was lost to debate the many issues which confront the society, and to contribute to public understanding of those issues.

It is possible that the organisers of the event tried too hard to accommodate and to please the political parties, which would explain the sterility of the debates.

We would have preferred to have seen a cross-section of journalists posing questions to representatives of the two major political parties with each side having an opportunity to rebut and to challenge the statements made by the other. We believe the intention of informing the public would have been better served by that type of arrangement, perhaps next time.

At another level we think there is scope for debates at community level, along the lines indicated in the column by the Rev Devon Dick elsewhere on this page. In reporting on a peace walk through the Maverley community last Friday the Rev Dick says the Fraternal has pledged to organise local debates between candidates.

This obviously is an idea for the future; but it merits consideration for islandwide adoption. We think such debates in a kind of 'town meeting' format that is used at the local level of American administration would give an impetus to serious civil discourse.

Massive party rallies are overloaded with propaganda and personal invective mixed with lively entertainment. But there is little scope for serious debate on national issues.