Stage fright
THE COMELEC through its spokesman recently declared that candidates are not compelled to join any debate, including the one the electoral body itself will be sponsoring. It’s not the first time that this aversion to being subjected to unexpected questions and fencing with rivals (at least verbally) is openly recognized. Some candidates prefer to avoid displaying an inability to discuss issues or answer questions in such a public forum, with no speech writer or teleprompter at hand.
Even with motherhood statements characterizing programs of government (eliminate poverty, fight corruption, return to autocracy), there are fine points where disagreements on approaches can arise. Thus, political debates not only test comprehension and articulation of policies, but also highlight differences among candidates.
These days, debates seem best avoided, except in academic settings. The last televised presidential debates turned out to be too formal and, yes, boring. (How are you this afternoon Madame Senator?) The candidates brought their own cheering squads which were not silenced by the moderator’s stern demeanor.
Articulate expressions on the state of the economy tend to sound professorial. The statistically adept exponent of a position on the declining economy can be seen as an “ivory tower” academic, out of touch with the political realities on the ground. Words like “political dynasty” and “human rights” can sound too abstract. (Can I show the “pieta” photo?)
Even a less confrontational format like a joint interview with a particular host can be too risky to participate in, at least for a candidate who feels comfortable with his survey lead — why risk a booboo or a stammer when one is safely ahead in the surveys? We prefer to talk directly to our supporters who know when to cheer.
The joint interview format with random questions picked out of a box tries to promote fairness by throwing in soft questions (What is your favorite book? You don’t have to mention if you read it.) and hard ones (How do you drive away the invaders who pester our fishermen?). The luck of the draw makes the system fair.
The debate format is certain to be full of surprises. Should a putative frontrunner in the surveys do all he can to avoid being on stage in a nationwide telecast?
Here are some of the arguments that spokespersons use in getting their client out of harm’s way:
The host is biased against our candidate. She asks difficult questions on history which is a subject that our candidate skipped in school. Never mind which school.
Certain features of the debate format can be challenged, like requiring an immediate reaction to a statement or question. Shouldn’t the candidate or debater be given one day to study the question and consult his constituents? What’s the rush in eliciting an opinion on such a weighty matter without having relevant data at hand and some intelligent discussion with advisers? In the real world of governance, wise counsel will be available for a proper response.
Maybe, the number of debaters should include all the listed candidates? Why limit the stage to five? We want a cacophony of irrelevant voices. Our candidate can even look good by being quiet.
Such arguments justify opting out of any joint interviews, debates, and other fora for the discussions of issues. The only acceptable format for the shy candidate may be a friendly interview with pre-screened questions — what is your favorite campaign attire? (What happened to the “shirt jack barong”?)
So, how will the educated voter evaluate a candidate if he has stage fright?
But how can you have an opinion on someone who refuses to be asked unscripted questions?
Even beauty contests have a segment where a question is asked (sometimes also drawn from a box) of the finalist to validate if there is a thought behind the smile. Shouldn’t candidates for the highest position express their opinions or explain past actions and plans for governance? (What will you do if you lose? Go back to being irrelevant somewhere else.)
The more we hear from our candidates in different settings with different questions, the better we are able to evaluate their fitness for office. Hiding from interviews and debates can lead to the question — what is he afraid of?
Or the other question — shouldn’t we be afraid of him?
Tony Samson is chairman and CEO of TOUCH xda









