The official start of the political campaign for the 2010 elections is well far ahead, but already the atmosphere reeks of partisan brickbats and damaging insinuations.

Added to all that are the conflicting survey results that put on top of the heap the so-called early favorites to the dismay of those who suddenly find themselves at the bottom of the least favored. The point is that survey results conducted by different research outfits often enough contradict each other instead of confirming them to indicate their authenticity.

This early, you could easily feel the growing confusions that cloud what should be the intelligent choices of the people among those seeking public office, particularly those running for the presidency.

It is under this situation that the proposal to include presidential debates as part of the electoral process sounds reasonable and should be seriously considered to guide the voters in making rational judgments in the election of their leaders.

Presidential debates, to be sure, will inform and involve voters more sensibly and reflectively in the democratic process: it is in debates between competing candidates that they can verbalize their ideas for the voters’ consideration.

Debates between presidential contenders – and vice presidential rivals as well – will provide the high-level exposure of the candidates to the general public. This is an important aspect of civic spiritedness as they are both participants in arousing public concern over issues of deep-seated national significance.

It will also test the candidates’ responses to questions of popular will and possibilities for the country’s future.

The idea of presidential debates was first suggested by Palawan Congressman Antonio Alvarez, spokesman of the ruling Lakas-Kampi-CMD Party, who said an “unscripted question-and-answer forum format” would allow the public to know more about the candidates’ program of government.

But what is important is that the presidential candidates will have to issue statements of principles and objectives they espouse and defend them in the course of the debate. Platforms which consist of specific promises and generalities may well be elaborated and made clear and precise.

Presidential debates in the United States have a long history dating as far back as 1858 when Abraham Lincoln, a former congressman, ran for the presidency against Stephen A. Douglas who was a former senator.

Lincoln won the debate as well as the US presidency.

In last year’s elections, between John McCain of the Republican Party and Barack Obama of the Democratic Party, three presidential debates were held and one for the vice-presidential candidates. The topic in the first debate was “Foreign Policy and National Security,” and the other was “The Economy and Domestic Policy.”

The format was a 90-minute debate with the candidates standing at the podium. Candidates questioned in turn with two-minute responses, followed by 5 minutes of open discussion between the moderator and the candidates for each question.

If the proposal for the debates between the presidential contenders in our own presidential campaign for the 2010 elections pushes through, we can devise our format that fits our particular purpose and circumstances.

Probably, too, we have to create our version of the Commission on Presidential Debates to take charge of the details of the verbal intercourse. The debates could be sponsored by private clubs or non-profit organizations or by the universities.

(zhern_218@yahoo.com)