OUR CIVIC DUTY, aside from obeying traffic rules, celebrating Olympic victories, and paying taxes, is to vote wisely. Advocacy groups for getting the vote out through the registration of new or lapsed voters may also set up forums to evaluate the qualifications of candidates.
One TV non-debate format has been used before. This can feature paired candidates, with well-known ones partnered with fringe hopefuls to be given equal time in answering questions from the public. These can cover qualifications as well as policy statements on such subjects as extra-judicial killings and economic recovery after the pandemic.
Maybe the format will be a virtual setting, making it even more challenging keeping the audience awake.
Anchors keep the program rolling. Questions are asked from the floor, including those from professorial types who are not clocked for the time they take with their mini-speeches seeking a reaction from the candidate. The viewing of such public-interest (although there is little that is interesting) exchanges can be painful to watch, not unlike a visit to the dentist for prophylaxis.
This exchange of views can also follow a debate format, which some major candidates shun for obvious reasons.
With the ubiquity of polls and the ranking of candidates, “electability” has become a distracting attribute. Why waste a vote for someone with no chance of winning? Here is a clear case of a “self-fulfilling prophecy,” or mind-conditioning. If everyone votes not for the deserving candidate but the one less desirable but with a supposedly higher probability of getting the votes, does the citizen not abandon the better candidate for a compromise choice?
Except for candidates who were classmates or neighbors of ours and therefore well-known enough to us, we have to rely only on an artificially enhanced public persona.
The really ardent voter can still do research on the public record.
In his or her chosen career up to this point, does the candidate exhibit good managerial skills and a track record of well-considered decisions without a hidden agenda for self-enrichment?
What if he used to be an actor, even if presently unemployed — did his roles portray villains or action scenes requiring doubles? (Okay, acting seems to set a difficult standard for gauging suitability in an elected post.) This does not bar movie celebrities and has-beens to line up for a senatorial position.
The voting record for the re-electionist should delve on more than just one piece of legislation. After all, a record on this singled-out subject does not define her other attributes, or lack of them. Was this legislator one of the killers of the freedom of the press in denying the renewal of the franchise of a broadcast company? There is a list of these 70 villains available.
If a candidate comes from a field unrelated to governance and the law, is this a point against him? Does boxing constitute valid work experience in staying in the ring and fighting for the oppressed?
The argument for “name recall” as justification for not taking further efforts in knowing candidates seems acceptable to some. Notoriety too figures in instant recognition of a name or face. Previous elections showed that mere fame did not always ensure victory. Too many TV game hosts, action stars, and a surname shared with an incumbent can get dumped by voters. Sometimes, star power equates with cluelessness and lightweight credentials.
The positive aspects of celebrity can be driven by accomplishments that are well known. True, trolls can enhance and even misrepresent selfish deeds with the patina of public service. Photogenic shots of wind-blown hair in a typhoon, clutching a baby tightly to one’s chest is considered a good image to project a champion of the poor and displaced.
Is it the voter’s responsibility to be informed or a candidate’s challenge to inform?
Advocates of intelligent voting (is that an oxymoron?) prescribe the model of a candidate as a job applicant. And yet, this paradigm is flawed. After all, the candidate is not really a future subordinate being interviewed. He could turn out to be one’s oppressor afterwards.
It’s a serious business picking the right candidate who will faithfully serve his country… and not somebody else’s.
Tony Samson is Chairman and CEO of TOUCH xda
