• The public debate the uses and abuses of the proposed public debate between 2 Oppo. Prez contenders 
• Would the debate be more of the same old wine in new bottles or should the public be more involved with expert moderation and should the law bind polls manifestoes? 

Whether the proposed debate between the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) led National People’s Power (NPP) of the Parliamentary Opposition and the main Parliamentary Opposition, the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) would actually take place, and even if it did, whether it would result in anything of real value, are frequently asked questions these days. Recently, the NPP claimed that it had given the SJB an ultimatum until 20 May to propose a date for the debate. However, given the nature of Sri Lanka’s politics, the public think that they cannot trust it to take place until it does take place.

According to the public, including those expressing their full support for a debate of this nature, even though the proposed debate would have been a historic event in Sri Lanka’s political culture, what is more important is what the public can take from the debate. While many are waiting to know what the two Parties have to say about their plans to revive the economy, more people remain doubtful about those plans.

“This debate would only be another platform to spread lies and hurl allegations at each other. In other words, a place to do what is done on political stages in a less unpleasant and obvious manner,” one person said.

Several persons coming from diverse backgrounds had more to say about what they expect from the proposed debate and what they think of it as a political event. According to what they told The Daily Morning, the hype surrounding the debate seems to be receding.

A genuine need or an election campaign?

Some expressed concerns that if the two parties genuinely wanted to organise a debate, especially at a time where elections and the main political parties’ potential to rebuild the economy have become topics of discussion, they would not be hesitating to hold a debate citing trivial reasons. While some think that it would not take place, some opined that such a debate would receive serious attention only when an election is declared officially.

Expressing her opinion, 21-year-old student Senali Kusum said: “If either the NPP or the SJB truly wanted to tell the people about their vision with respect to the current economic situation, they would not have hesitated. It is obvious that the people are waiting to replace the present Government with a Government they think will take a different approach to dealing with the economic crisis, an approach that involves very little impact on the people. Any political party would have taken advantage of such a situation. If they not using this situation to change the people’s minds, it means that either they are overconfident about their ability to face elections or they don’t care about the people’s opinion.”

Similar opinions were shared by others who said that if the proposed debate is to have any impact, it will have to be different from the political debates broadcasted on the television (TV), and that otherwise, it would be a waste of time and money.

Meanwhile, 60-year-old retired insurance company employee Attanayake (name changed on request) was of the opinion that the proposed debate would set an exemplary precedent in Sri Lanka’s political culture. Noting that similar public debates are famous in various other countries, he said that it is high time that Sri Lanka also adopts similar concepts.

“If the debate is conducted in an open, professional manner, I think that it could be a notable initiative. Other countries see plenty of such debates where politicians talk about their policies and visions, often with direct communication with the public. I don’t know how effective this debate would be. However, starting such a culture itself is a good development, because it will evolve to be a key part in political campaigns. The most important aspect that should be protected and developed is the people’s involvement. Without that, debates between politicians would be worthless.”

Regarding the matter, 33-year-old accountant Sudeesh Anuradha explained that a mere debate where the two Parties exchange opinions and also ask and answer questions will not be beneficial to the country, since such a discussion will not subject politicians to scrutiny: “They always talk, among themselves and with the people. Why do we need to let them do the same under a new name? What does not happen usually, yet needs to happen, is someone with the right knowledge asking them questions face t0 face. They should not have a chance to lie or give the people impractical promises.” 

He added that therefore, if the voters are to benefit from a debate between the two Parties, there should be experts to moderate it. These experts, he suggested, should be asking questions that the people have raised, and assess the two Parties’ answers. According to him, these experts should announce their judgement about the two Parties’ plans, especially concerning the economic situation, at the conclusion of the debate.

“I think that a third party should be involved in this debate, i.e. experts, to prevent the people’s knowledge deficiencies from pushing the people to blindly believe politicians’ attractive words or worse, vote for promises that are not practically possible,” he added.

What should the people expect?

Some who spoke about the proposed debate opined that although it is a new concept seen rarely in Sri Lanka, it would not be any different from a traditional political meeting where political parties and politicians give promises that they are not going to fulfil.

In this regard, 34-year-old private sector employee Nandi Amarasekara said: “Given the amount of damage that has been done to this country by lying and boastful politicians, by now, we should have a better judgement about politicians and their promises, especially ahead of elections. However, the people seem to expect something revolutionary out of this debate; as if they are going to bring all the solutions that the country need to the debate. What has been proposed is a debate focusing on policies, which I agree is rare in Sri Lanka unless in the case of TV debates. We may not be familiar with such a public debate. But, we are more than familiar with the two political Parties and their Leaders.”

His sentiments were shared by more, who added that although any person can make policy statements, what matters is whether there is some kind of an assurance about their implementation.

In addition, 49-year-old self-employed carpenter R. Jayawardena explained: “Let us assume that this debate actually takes place and they genuinely talk about the people’s issues. Let us also assume that they reveal their plans, decisions, and opinions about these issues, including those relating to the economy. So far, we have heard more than enough plans and promises, just not in public debates. Now, my question is, what guarantees do we have that these promises would be fulfilled and not face the same fate as the promises made during election campaigns?” 

Jayawardena opined that since there is no such assurance, what the people should ask for is not a debate but a concrete and legally binding mechanism that compels politicians to fulfil their election promises. He pointed out that certain politicians have talked about a system where a new provision is added to the Fundamental Rights Chapter of the Constitution saying that it is mandatory to fulfil election promises conveyed via election manifestos. Noting that politicians’ promises cannot be trusted unless they are subjected to such conditions, he said that the country should not keep hopes about any significant outcomes from the debate.

Meanwhile, speaking about the importance of the proposed debate, Kusum said that it depends on what the people can expect from such a debate and whether the people would be allowed to be a part of the same. If the people do not get to ask questions or respond to statements made during the debate, she said, it would be just another political speech where the people’s sentiments are not represented.