Debating the importance of debates

Should there be a debate whether a debate is important or not? Based on the outcome of the recent debates shown on television and live streamed online, it seemed there is. The ones who were present say that debates are a chance to “court” the voters; the other side said otherwise, saying that debates “are not helpful” and they prefer to just talk directly to the people. Both arguments have their pros and cons, and in the heat of this political season, both sides have their supporters and bashers. First things first, a debate is not something required by law. For example, in the United States, presidential and vice-presidential debates are organized by a private, non-partisan organization called the Commission on Presidential Debates. Its primary mission is to “ensure, for the benefit of the American electorate, that general election debates are held” and look forward to “bringing high-quality, educational debates to the electorate.” A study, however, revealed that leading candidates (could) decline to debate or resist debate. That is why two prestigious institutions, the Georgetown University Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Harvard University Institute of Politics, recommended that “the two major political parties endorse a mechanism designed to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that presidential debates between the leading candidates be made a permanent part of the electoral process.” In our country, we face a similar predicament. There is no law that requires candidates undergo a debate. There is even no major penalty (or if there is, it is a mere slap on the wrist). In fact, at the start of the campaign season, Commission on Elections (Comelec) spokesperson James Jimenez only said on his Twitter account that “presidential and vice-presidential candidates should commit, to the public whose votes they seek, that they will participate in the PiliPinas debates 2022.” He, however, admitted that the Comelec could not force the candidates to attend their sponsored debates. Using the words of the two academic institutions in the US, the Comelec must also implement a mechanism to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that presidential debates are a permanent part of the electoral process. Looking at the Fair Election Act or Republic Act 9006, Section 7.3. only states that Comelec may “require national television and radio networks to sponsor at least three national debates among presidential candidates and at least one national debate among vice-presidential candidates." “The debates among presidential candidates shall be scheduled on three different calendar days; the first debate shall be scheduled within the first and second week of the campaign period; the second debate within the fifth and sixth week of the campaign period; and the third debate shall be scheduled within the 10th and 11th week of the campaign period,” the law stated. The law is clear. There should be debates. But the law didn’t state that candidates are required to attend such an exercise. Historically, presidential candidates have appeared and supported these Comelec debates—some have excused themselves in the past using a variety of reasons. This election cycle is no different, but with 48 days left before we shade the name of our preferred candidate, don’t we deserve to be fully informed? In the end, like any debates, a winner will emerge. We could end up with a president who has attended all the debates or one who has decided to take the other route. It now depends on the voters to choose which side.