FINDING ANSWERS
By FORMER SENATOR ATTY. JOEY D. LINA
Atty. Joey D. Lina
Former Senator
To debate or not to debate? Whether national candidates in the coming elections ought to participate in a debate has now become debatable. And there can be a myriad of reasons for or against debating.
But it seems people are mostly in favor of the political debate, gauging from the opinions expressed by televiewers in the latest episode of the DZMM teleradyo program “Magpayo Nga Kayo” (Saturdays, 9:30 to 10:30 a.m.) which I co-host with ace broadcaster May Valle Ceniza.
Among the primary reasons why many believe in the necessity of the political debate is that such discourse allows voters to hear all candidates to compare and contrast their visions – an essential tool needed to come up with an informed decision.
And the media exposure from the debate enables the electorate to learn more about political newbies who could otherwise remain largely unknown throughout the campaign period.
On the other hand, those adamant against candidates debating insist that talk is cheap, that those who are seen as winners are merely the glib-tongued, and that the best way to size up candidates is to examine their track record.
There are also others who think that engaging in a debate is of little use especially for those enjoying a comfortable lead in surveys. While some critics view such stance as the height of arrogance, those against debates ask: why risk being attacked in a debate and possibly lose some brownie points? And why allow the unknowns gain media mileage at the expense of the popular or well-known candidates?
But another way of looking at the value of the political debate is to view it from the standpoint of the voters, and not of the candidates. Without the debate, are voters being deprived of the chance to get to know other candidates who are equally qualified, the ones lagging behind in the surveys simply because they do not have the means or enough financial support to pay for very expensive television ads?
Are voters being deprived of the opportunity to rise above the political dysfunction whereby song and dance numbers are prevalent in campaign sorties, and choices are based mainly on the sheer popularity of candidates and survey ratings? Are voters being denied a better yardstick for leadership excellence with which to measure the best candidates and programs to support? Are voters being discouraged from becoming a potent force capable of discerning right choices and not falling prey to empty promises of politicians adept at patronage politics and shrewd advertising?
It’s no secret that Philippine politics remains dominated by personalities, some of whom are motivated not by love of country but purely by selfish interests. Ours is vastly different from other democracies, where potential aspirants undergo rigid public scrutiny in town hall meetings, primaries, and public debates where issues are threshed out and discussed thoroughly, and where the candidates’ character can be more keenly assessed.
No real honest-to-goodness political party system exists here whereby political groups present the electorate with clearly differentiated platforms, policies, and viewpoints on vital matters which enable voters to sufficiently scrutinize proposals before making an informed choice on election day. Our brand of politics remains personality-driven without a clear and coherent party platform of governance.
If we had a truly functioning party system in the Philippines, national and local problems can be analyzed thoroughly and voters would be presented with an array of programs and platforms of governance, as well as highly qualified and principled candidates embodying the party’s principles and who have undergone the party’s stringent process to select competent and compassionate leaders.
But a genuine party system in the country is still a pipe dream. For the longest time, candidates are either self-proclaimed, anointed or crowned by power blocks or vested interest groups. Candidates are winnable because surveys say so, and because they have resources to mount a well-financed and organized campaign. Plans and programs presented are often good only on paper but are rarely used as basis for choosing candidates.
The campaign trail has acquired a fiesta-like atmosphere as voters are offered freebies, and are able to watch free performances of showbiz personalities. And with the country’s poverty incidence remaining virtually unchanged statistically amid all the elections in the past three decades, the poor cannot be entirely blamed if they fail to see elections for what it should be – a means of significant change to improve the nation’s plight.
Indeed, it comes as no surprise that the poor want to literally cash in on elections because their misery is bound to continue whoever wins. For them, election time is payback time – not to get rid of bad politicos, but to get a share of money that’s perceived to be stolen, or yet to be stolen, from public coffers.
But hope springs eternal. Those aspiring for a better Philippines must support concrete steps to scrutinize national and local candidates. Are they suited for public office? Do they have a clear grasp of the workings of government? Will they use public funds with utmost integrity and efficiency? Can they get things done to help achieve inclusive growth, more jobs and livelihood opportunities, housing for the homeless, and other concerns that matter most to the poor? Answers to all these may be threshed out in political debates.
Email: [email protected]