political leaders debate. That's a great shame because in an election this close the people have a right to all the information they can get and a right to see and hear how the leaders stack up face to face.

It is hard to understand why the Progressive Labour Party first very quickly agreed to the debate, then ducked behind the slogan "no debate without a date'' and, following the setting of the election date, placed obstacles in the way of the leaders going face to face.

We know that there have been complex negotiations among the parties, complicated by the apparent need to include in the debate the National Liberal Party which holds no seats and represents a handful of people. We would have thought agreement could have been reached quickly in the public interest if the public interest was put first. As nearly as we can tell, something frightened off the Opposition.

Some PLP followers have since claimed that Premier Pamela Gordon was frightened to face the people in a public debate as opposed to a television studio debate. Yet the PLP knew when it proposed a public hall debate that it carried the danger of becoming an acrimonious free for all slanging match.

Yes, the Bermudian public is intelligent and knows how to show respect as the Opposition Leader says but in a close election emotions run high. That is not the purpose of a debate. The purpose is to let the public judge the ideas and thoughts of the leaders in a controlled and even-handed environment. A debate is useless to the people and fails to serve its purpose if it becomes a public circus.

Both party leaders are good "on their feet''. Both present themselves well.

Both are confident. Both speak well and clearly which has not always been the case with party leaders in Bermuda. Both have a good command of their policies and know how to present those policies well.

So what is the problem with a debate? We think it must come down once again to the advice being given to the PLP by their overseas political organisers. It certainly seems that the PLP has been told that it can coast home ahead of the UBP if it keeps its head down and its mouth shut and does not make any mistakes. There must be a PLP feeling that a debate is a risk, a mistake could be made and that mistake might be costly. But that, of course, is true for both party leaders.

Whatever the cause or the reasons or the advice which may or may not have been given, the problem is that the people have been deprived of an opportunity to make an informed judgment on which leader they prefer. Why not debate if the parties are confident that they have the right leader in place and the person best able to run this Country. Why duck? Why accept and then try to hide?