THE public is always interested and excited whenever there is going to be a debate on the direction of public policy and the way it is being implemented by the government of the day.
They get a chance to zoom into the thinking patterns of the persons at the centre of the debate, understanding their positions on a wide range of issues that run to the core of societal development, progress and growth.

This is particularly true if the public has concerns with the manner, type, and form of good governance systems, and institutional or legislative systems in place which result in the necessary checks and balances.

So, the debates are a big deal at home and abroad. Therefore, one should not accept offers lightly to engage one’s opponent if one is not confident in the policy positions that one is putting forward or defending.

Similarly, one cannot debate effectively if one is not au fait with the topic or moot of the debate. Simply put, one cannot debate effectively if one has no clue and one has a set of fictional constructs of policy intentions.

After all, William Penn said in his works that “in all debates, let truth be thy aim, not victory or unjust interest.” His position is supported by Jim Lerher, who said “A debate has one purpose, one purpose only, and that is to facilitate an exchange of ideas directly between two candidates, and that’s it.”

This week, the public got the opportunity to witness in person, and via social media, two very different personalities debating the moot, which reads: “Guyana is not on the right path to development given its newfound oil wealth.”

The two persons were Economic Adviser to the Leader of the Opposition who insists on referring to himself as an economist, Elson Low and a Public Policy and Financial Analyst Joel Bhagwandin.

Within the first 45 minutes of the debate, Low advanced all the public-policy positions adopted and adumbrated by the combined opposition under the leadership of Aubrey Norton.
He delved into Guyana’s poverty-reduction efforts, stating that the country still has not achieved much because it has a population that has 40 per cent of its people living below the international poverty line.

Low blasted a series of policy initiatives that allegedly were useless because they were ineffective due to what he claimed was the incompetence of the government of the day, which he said enjoyed more than 25 years in power. He looked at the example of worrying developments in the oil and gas sector with respect to audits, and the gas-to-shore project.
Low’s presentation was highly emotive, as he played with those present on the topic of making university free.

He did not present factual arguments and quantitative analyses of the policy measures which were pivotal to supporting the moot. It was bare and a politician’s stage for Low as far as any rational mind is concerned, with the sheepish section of the public falling prey to his illogical rants.

Soon, Bhagwandin took the podium to make his arguments, discrediting the moot with bare statistics and a quantitative approach to the issue of public-policy positions which were adopted by the government of the day that brought Guyana from a bankrupt nation to a developing state.

Using his confidence and showing that he was least interested in being popular, Bhagwandin used examples of hurdles and challenges to the country’s economic growth and stability to get his audience to appreciate the gains made on the path of development. He crushed Low’s arguments on the gas-to-shore project and the oil and gas sector, pointing to fallacies and holes in the latter’s reasoning.

In the end, Bhagwandin appeared to be the front-runner as far as his style of using facts and quantitative data to show how the moot was wrong, and Guyana was on a strong path to development as the government of the day was implementing a series of fiscal and legislative policies that will redound to Guyana’s development in the long term.
He seemed to struggle with getting the public to understand that that approach would result in continuous economic growth and stability, coupled with the short-term measures put in place to deal with the cost of living and other realistic occurrences.

This, sadly, was missed by the part of the audience which was clamouring to Low who seemed to be championing giving out the resources to people and spending on their needs now as opposed to looking at the future.

This debate was good as it clearly paints two choices and perspectives on the moot.
Bhagwandin’s arguments would be endorsed by any right-thinking Guyanese who understood the challenges of nation-building and policy-making towards development.

Also, his analyses would find strong favour with the political parties who understand governance and governance challenges, as well as those in government who are thinking in a futuristic and modern way, especially with the new wealth of oil and gas resources.

The normal man would find his reasoning to be sound and true as real economists hardly talk about giving people large sums of money and entrusting them to spend it on their needs as opposed to wants as Low did so many times during his debate.

But then again, it takes a low level of intelligence and an equally low reasoning ability to understand that Low was giving a lesson to the public on how to take Guyana down the path of bankruptcy in the modern age.

Apart from the good points that he made generally on checks and balances that need to be in place, he was playing politics and giving a lesson on ‘jumbie economics’ from someone who has no business being an adviser on economics or an economist.