The Petronas/ Ministry of Education National Debate Competition.

After a period of prolonged inactiveness in the blogosphere and with the dust from the ‘Petronas Debate Competition’ so well and truly settled that I feel its memory may soon be plunged into  permanent antiquity, the time is nigh to ridicule the competitions absolute absurdity.

The competition consisted of 16/17 of Sudan’s states ( with the exception of Red Sea State which had declined to attend for some unrevealed reason) , each divided into round-robin style groups of 4. The groups were decided by some undisclosed seeding system that meant , for example, Jazeera and Khartoum state – traditionally the two strongest teams- could not be drawn together. We, North Kordofan state, found ourselves drawn with South Kordofan, North Darfur and Central Darfur.  Owing to a lack of organization and coordination, as well as no doubt a Sudanese insensibility towards time, the competition was dragged out over 8 days. It was made clear by the senile head judge Ibrahim that it would be too much to ask the students to do more than one debate a day (despite the fact that the debates were limited to 16minutes). Consequently the  proceedings would start at around 8am and end at 1pm. At 10am the day’s events would briefly be interrupted by breakfast; or rather a Styrofoam box filled with cold and soggy junk food that would surely leave Jamie Oliver chronically disillusioned. It therefore caused much amusement for our Sudanese friends , when each day at break 'C' and I would walk across the road to the resident  ‘Sita Chai’ to indulge in a bowl of ‘bosch’ (bread and beans  -‘fuul’- mixed together).

Our debate team

 The competition was held at the Sudan headquarters of Petronas, the Sino-Malaysia oil company. The Petronas HQ, with its modernistic yet unassuming corporate architecture (minimalistic marble floors and outdoor landscaping), stood in sharp contrast to the numerous, rather more decrepit, state ministries lined along the prestigious Nile river bank. A large hall, customarily used for badminton, was loaned out by Petronas to the Ministry of Education for the duration of the competition. It was this material help that constituted the bulk of the CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) assistance dished out. Nonetheless the expertise of Ibrahim, the competition coordinator, was certainly intended to complement this considerable, although apparently diminishing (in comparison to previous years), investment of material and financial resources.

 In reality Ibrahim turned out to be a self-congratulatory leech;  busy convincing himself, as well as anyone else who would listen, that his experience in establishing and developing the competition over the course of its derisory nine year existence, made his judgement unimpeachable. Unsurprisingly our relationship with him began to deteriorate as soon as we queried, and gradually came to criticize the competitions format and organization. In fact our relationship deteriorated to such an extent that I am quite sure the majority of participating students and teachers would rank our confrontation with Ibrahim as one of the five most memorable moments of the 8 days.  

 After probing Ibrahim for much of the day on issues such as scheduling and evaluation criteria, the head judge eventually reached the end of his tether as we informed him of circling rumours about favouritism towards Khartoum state (passed onto us by the students). As we stood in the centre of the debate hall surrounded by numerous students, teachers and guests Ibrahim castigated us for ‘infiltrating the minds’ of students in an attempt to turn them against him and thus undermine his- and the rest of the judging committee’s –authority. His scolding did not end at branding us spies.  Instead his voice, wavering uncontrollably as his fury became yet more maniacal, grew louder and louder; his insults increasingly defamatory.

 'C' and I should not be permitted to visit the students camp, should obtain a letter of permission from the Ministry of Education if we wished to attend the subsequent days competition and finally, did not ‘have a clue’ about Sudanese culture. This last insult reminded me of the chapter on cultural differences in SPINE 4/5 that I taught on my first day in El Obeid. This chapter stated that it was a matter of ‘cultural difference’ that the British were punctual and the Sudanese unpunctual. Putting systemic problems- whether it be punctuality or accountability- down to ‘cultural difference’ seems like an evasion tactic, enabling people to live in a blissful ignorance that brushes over Sudan’s inadequacies.  As Ive spent the last 660 word slamming the debate competition without any precise details, I think it would be appropriate to quickly list some of the my main qualms with the weeks activities:

1.       Please…Lets call the competition what it is:

 Any astute observer would realise that what took place in the Petronas hall was more an English Speech than a debate competition. The format was as follows: Each member of the proposing team would present a two minute , pre-prepared speech, to be followed by three two minute speeches by the opposing team. Thereafter each team would have one two minute block of time to conclude and rebut the other teams argument. This brings me on to point 2….

2.       The competition rewarded  English accuracy over English fluency

Presentation and memorization eg. English accuracy, was prioritised over the ability to respond spontaneously and critically to the other teams arguments eg. English fluency. Students spent their evenings attempting to memorize prewritten speeches rather than brainstorming,  discussing and critically engaging with the topic theme (too often in Sudan students are spoon fed- there is little appetite for problem-solving). Ibrahim and the judging committee believed that the participants level of English was inadequate for such spontaneous interaction. Yet, since when did accuracy come before fluency? The priority at this stage of language learning should be to develop fluency, that is the ability to utilize language and transfer meaning so to meet any situational requirements. A properly arranged and organized debate competition is the perfect forum for this. After all I do not care ‘how’ I asked the’ sita chai ‘(tea lady) for coffee as long as I get the ‘jabana bedoun sukker’ that I requested. This point brings me quickly on to the results of the competition…

3.       Success constituted speaking and presentation rather than content and thought.

 Perhaps one of my biggest groans came when Ibrahim unveiled the candidates for the competitions best debater. Clearly Ibrahim, and the rest of the judges had not listened carefully to the arguments put forward, but rather proffered praise and success for the superficial factors such as accent and pronunciation. It was no surprise therefore that the three candidates put forward for best debater all had American accents (and family in America). Even more shockingly one of these candidates had debated an entirely different topic than the one announced, inadvertently  discussing the question ‘back to front’. I honestly would have nominated any of the other debaters on this individuals team above them.

4.       “Judging a debate competition is wholly subjective”….Sorry Ibrahim…wrong again.

 Over the duration of the competition I became worn down by Ibrahim’s constant pronouncements to students and teachers that judging a debate competition is an entirely subjective (people like different things) exercise. It sounded like a ploy to rid him, and the rest of the judging committee, of any accountability. At one stage 'C' asked Ibrahim a question ‘Do you prefer emotional or factual arguments?’. Ibrahim replied: ‘Personally I prefer emotional but perhaps other judges prefer factual arguments’. Of course the correct answer should have been neither.  A debate competition is not, as Ibrahim seems to believe the subjective interpretation of subjective criteria but rather the subjective interpretation of objective criteria. The lack of criteria is to the detriment of the competition; both enfeebling  the learning potential for students and damaging the judges reputation for impartiality and fairness. How can teachers teach their students, how can students improve without a criterion that sets out the formula for success? Perhaps more worryingly is that the lack of evaluation criteria exonerates authority (in this case the judging panel) of responsibility to explain and justify their decisions. Consequently the lack of criteria at the very least nurtures rumours of corruption and favouritism, if not in actual fact empowering the authorities to use their power frivolously.

5.       Fostering accusations of unfair play and favouritism.

Throughout the week long debate competition we heard recurrent protestations of favouritism by the judging committee towards Khartoum state- this is not surprising given that in its 10 year history Khartoum have won every year. At first I thought that such assertions were simply the groans and moans of slightly sore, and definitively disillusioned losers. Yet, the failure of Ibrahim and the judging committee to address these festering rumours made me question the integrity of the competition. Although through no fault of their own, Khartoum state did not stay in the camp with all the other students, attended only their own debates (rather than the remainder of the competition like other teams) and were afforded additional speaking time by Ibrahim. Furthermore, amid circling reports that the winning team were awarded a trip to the Petronas University in Kuala Lumpa, Khartoum’s victory prize was not revealed. This further fuelled the claims that the results and rewards for success were prearranged.

 The week long debate competition was a microcosm of Sudan. At its worst Sudan is a place where a corrupt mentality reigns. This corruption has two guises: an explicit corruption, embodied by malpractices such as the embezzlement of public money, and an implicit corruption, frequently misinterpreted as ‘part of Sudan’s culture’. While explicit corruption is condemned far and wide (even by those who engage in its practices), implicit corruption is seen as commonplace, characteristic of a natural way of things. Far from criticizing or questioning the existence of the latter, people accept, even cherish it. Above all implicit corruption is manifested by the dearth of a standard through which authority can be held to account. It was the absence of any standard, checks or balances through which, at the very least, the judging and organizing committee could be held to justify their decisions that blighted the duration of the competition. In the grand-scale of things a few misgivings about a school level debate competition may seem insignificant. Nonetheless such nonchalant attitudes, manifested through the blind, unquestioned acceptance of those in authority (which often means the old or charismatic) is part of a wider inability to check and challenge the conduct of the powerful.