by Kate Villaflor
The 2013 midterm elections can be described as a tightly contested battle for the Senate. Campaigning has been intense, with candidates maximizing their exposure on different platforms; including sorties, market tours, posters, forums, radio interviews, television appearances, advertisements and social media.
The major buzz in the past weeks, however, especially among social media users, has been the back-to-back senatorial debates hosted by ABS-CBN on 21 and 28 April. This is according to many sites measuring trending topics on Facebook and Twitter like www.twitwheel.com and www.whattalking.com. Senatorial candidates Villanueva, Belgica and Casiño were the ones who bagged the most positive feeds and tweets. At the same time, some of the popular topics discussed by netizens wre the comparison of answers for the death penalty question and the senatorial candidates’ positions on the RH bill.
Importance of debates
Most of the major networks have hosted senatorial debates including the likes of Harapan 2013 (3-on-3 format), Harapan: The Senatorial Debates of ANC and ABS-CBN, and Umagang Hiritan and Pagsubok ng mga Kandidato by GMA 7 News. In addition, Solar News broadcast town hall-type debates in universities, while the Philippine Daily Inquirer also hosted a Senatorial Forum in UP.
Debates are important avenues for audiences to get to know their candidates better. They allow voters to have a sense of how senatorial aspirants will work in the legislature. Skill in argumentation is important for senators because it allows them to convince their peers of the merits of the bills they authored. This capacity to communicate and defend the interests of their constituents in the Senate makes them effective representatives. It is reasonable, therefore, for voters to consider how effective candidates are in persuading others, making debates a good tryout for a job in the Senate.
Debates also give us an idea about the political biases and stands of candidates on important national issues. They also allow us to assess a candidate’s knowledge of social issues and the validity of their proposals and promises.
Most candidates recognize the importance of participating in debates as demonstrated by their consistent attendance in events prepared by news networks, student organizations and other non-government organizations. On the other hand, candidates that failed to participate in debates were taunted over social media. Reelectionist Alan Peter Cayetano received remarks on his fear of facing the political dynasty issue, while Nancy Binay was mocked both for having an unimpressive track record and her supposed fear of facing questions on legitimacy.
Recently, even debaters from the University of the Philippines challenged candidates to debate, explaining the importance of this platform in exposing candidates’ thought processes and intellectual maturity.
Are debates elitist?
It is important to underscore the value of participating in televised debates in election campaigns but it is equally important to understand their limitations. The question of who benefits least from these debates needs to be examined.
Televised debates tend to exclude several important audiences. In most election debates, the English and Filipino languages are the primary mediums of argumentation. This excludes an important minority who are not conversant in both languages – citizens that equally deserve the right to listen, engage and improve their political knowledge.
Usually, these voters are those who have not attended formal schooling or those who have been raised in a mother tongue that is neither English nor Tagalog. Taking for granted the role of language in electoral debates endangers the democratic quality of the national elections as it limits the inclusiveness of the process of discourse formation.
The exclusivity of election updates, interviews and debates has already been a concern of some journalists, and even senatorial candidates. MAKABAYAN senatorial bet Teddy Casiño has raised a concern for Persons with Disabilities and has been successful in putting a translator inlet in most senatorial debates for the 2013 elections. Casiño authored the HB 6709 or the Sign Language Inset for News Programs Act.
Aside from the language issue, televised debates have also been questioned for their ability to properly reach out to broader audiences. Debates follow a strict format, where turn-taking, time limits and what sociologists call “impression management” are strictly controlled by producers and campaign handlers. Time limits test the candidate’s capacity to handle responses or actions under time-pressure, but then their answers are usually restricted to generalities, because of adherence to the restrictive rules of the debate.
It is no wonder why some candidates opt out of these forums and choose to focus on sorties and face-to-face campaigning instead, given that there is an impression of a better quality of engagement with voters in these events. At the same time, most debates during elections appear as collective conferences, focusing more on the questions of the public or campaign of their platforms, and not really interrogating each other like in a real debate.
Ideally, elections are a time when citizens’ educational backgrounds and other socio-cultural differences are leveled out. Each citizen has the right to a well-informed vote, and a requisite for such a choice is not a diploma, but the effective communication of information about the elections and candidates. On balance, do debates level or perpetuate these inequalities?
Kate Villaflor recently graduated BA Sociology from the University of the Philippines-Diliman.
