IN 2016 the country elects a new Head of State, a new Chief Executive, a new Commander in Chief. Also known as the President of the Republic of the Philippines.
Most people use those three titles interchangeably with the more formal designation of “President,” and there’s probably nothing wrong with that. The truth, however, is that each of those three titles actually describes a very specific aspect of what it means to be President.
Head of State, for instance, refers to the role of the President as the principal representative of the Filipino people, the living symbol of the nation. He stands for the highest values and ideals of the Philippines. Or as Charles de Gaulle of France once said, the head of state should personify “a certain idea about France.”
Chief Executive, on the other hand, reminds us that the President is the manager of the entire Executive branch of the government. As Chief Executive, the President is responsible for enforcing the laws of the country and is empowered to appoint various officials who act as his alter egos throughout the entire infrastructure of the Executive branch. In the same vein, the President—as Chief Executive—is ultimately responsible for how well the government serves the people.
And, finally, Commander in Chief very specifically pertains to the President’s role as the one holding supreme operational command and control of a nation’s military forces. He is the No. 1 soldier, and as such, burdened both with securing the lives of the people and with protecting the integrity of the state.
The President has other roles, of course, although those are not as commonly known as these three. He is also the country’s Chief Diplomat—which means that he decides foreign policy, or how the Philippines deals with the other countries of the world. He is, likewise, Chief Legislator, in that he has the authority to suggest new laws to Congress, urge them to speed up the passage of certain bills, and ultimately, exercise the veto.
To a certain extent, the President also performs as the Chief Economic Manager of the country. While it has been argued that presidents have very little control over the economy, the fact remains that he is the person seen by nearly everyone as being the most responsible for the economic well-being —the prosperity—of the country. And of course, the President is the chief of his political party. This simply means that, even as he helms the country, he also has to look out for the interests of his political party. This includes making sure that his party-mates get elected or appointed to office, even to the extent of campaigning for his party’s presidential candidate.
Getting back to the President’s principal roles of Head of State, Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, these three correspond very closely to the top 3 reasons presidential elections should be preceded by presidential debates.
Reason No. 1 is that a debate showcases each debater’s mastery of the issues currently affecting the country, and mastery of the issues is a key requirement for any Head of State. How can a person, no matter how educated or pedigreed, hope to represent an entire nation if he is not attuned to what the national experience is?
More important, how can the nation entrust leadership in a person who cannot show that he empathizes with their plight, or, at the very least, possesses a comprehensive grasp of it? Debates that are formatted to focus on issues—such as a town-hall meeting debate—can very effectively surface just how fluent a candidate is with the things that matter most to his constituents.
Reason No. 2 is that a debate reveals how a person approaches challenges. Reasoning ability, creative thinking, even where a candidate’s biases run to—these are all pushed to the fore in a debate. This gives the electorate the opportunity to scrutinize the candidate and, perhaps, come to some conclusion on how he will perform as a Chief Executive.
And reason No. 3 is that a debate—especially a panel debate—subjects each candidate to substantial pressure by forcing him to present arguments and counterarguments in an adversarial setting, under strict time constraints, and with the overarching need to win public approval. How a candidate behaves or acts under pressure is crucial information for the electorate in deciding who he thinks will be best suited for the high-pressure job of Commander in Chief.
Having said all that, it is also worth noting that the Philippines has not seen a good presidential debate in a long time, if it ever has. Part of the problem is that candidates are not legally bound to participate in debates and, more often than not, they would rather be out campaigning anyway.
I must concede that probably is the smarter choice for a politician to make, but it leaves me wondering just how much insight a voter can gain from watching a campaign speech. Probably not a lot. And when you’re talking about a job that calls for the occupant to manage at least seven distinct roles, it’s hard to consider that an acceptable state of affairs.
****
James Arthur B. Jimenez is director of the Commission on Elections’s education and information department.
1 comment
I agree that a lot of information can be gleaned from a candidate in a debating situation. Can we then say that a parliamentary system would be better in exposing the real color of a man since debating is normal in such form of government. And being so, the best among them will shine and be conspicuous and ensure his win as the head of the party thence the government as Prime Minister.