EVERY three years, we sit up and take notice of politicians, enthralled by their rhetoric. Unfortunately, we hardly ever realize that we are only hearing their voices echoing in the empty chamber of contextualized public discourse; and as anyone who has ever belted out a song in the shower can tell you, any voice ringing out in an empty space can easily sound golden. Doesn’t mean it’s actually any good, though, does it?
Well, the debates are on, and I believe those days of being mesmerized by politician promises are numbered.
On Wednesday the Commission on Elections (Comelec) signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas and the major television networks, together with their respective print partners, for the staging of the first Comelec- spearheaded presidential debates since before the turn of the century.
Forgive me if I sound a little giddy.
The last such showdown happened in 1992, more than two decades ago. There are, literally, people who were born and had gotten old enough to vote without ever having witnessed a Comelec-led presidential debate. In a sense, however, this is coming at just the right time.
Take, for instance, the matter of generating questions for the debate. Back in 1992, a team of Comelec officials had to go around the country soliciting questions from stakeholders and the general public. Interestingly, current Commissioner Luie Tito F. Guia was one of those officials. Today, however, crowd-sourcing questions has become a much more efficient undertaking.
With the use of modern communications technology, particularly social media, a hashtag alone can bring a veritable flood of questions from the public. This is exactly what happened this past week when, two days before the MOA signing, the Comelec announced the hashtag #PiliPinasDebates2016. Within hours, a broad spectrum of netizens—from declared partisans to people whose twitter feeds showed hardly any trace of political involvement—had responded with questions for the candidates.
Even a quick sampling of the questions would reveal insights into what our netizens feel strongly about.
Several, for instance, have asked what the candidates’ priority programs are going to be. Science and technology? Transportation? Poverty alleviation?
Many have shown concern for the power situation in the country. One asked for a “long-term solution for the power crisis in Mindanao,” and another wondered, “What is your stand on renewable energy and what do you propose to accomplish in meeting #COP21 goals?” And more than a few have shown that they consider foreign policy to be key. One example: “How will you address the increasing Chinese incursion in the West Phil Sea and will you consider foreign military aid?”
The breadth of the questions being received by the Comelec, less than a week into its crowd-sourcing enterprise, shows that, first, public interest in the debates is high, and second, that the candidates really have to be in top form when they step out on that stage. It is difficult to imagine motherhood statements still satisfying a voter who asks a question like, “What will be your strategic plans to eradicate corruption?”
Apart from it being easier now to get questions from the general population than it used to be, the availability of modern distribution channels has also effectively unshackled the power of debates to engage the people, in a way such events never could back in 1992.
In those days, television and radio were the only ways people could witness the unfolding of the debates, short of being there themselves. Video recordings rarely found their way into the homes of the electorate who, as a result, could only wait for reruns if they missed the first airing. It was far too easy, therefore, to simply ignore the debates.
Today, however, social media plays the role of game changer.
Live streaming makes the debates potentially available to every screen and every device capable of connecting to the Internet. A person could be on the bus, stuck in traffic, and still see and hear the candidates expounding on their plans for the nation. And if you really want to go meta, imagine being stuck in Edsa while watching a candidate telling the audience how he’s going to solve gridlock. In a situation like that, where the debate isn’t just being experienced intellectually but viscerally, it evolves from something merely informative into something with a tangible power to shape election-day decisions.
And because videos of the debate are embedded on web sites, they can actually be watched at any time, eliminating the need to wait for reruns, while establishing a virtual library of voter education material that any voter educator can refer to time and time again. This 24/7 availability, coupled with the ubiquity possible with smartphones, can only serve to further fuel the electorate’s appetite for information about the candidates and their platforms in a way that wasn’t possible even just five years ago. With the thirst for information comes the desire for action and transformation, which forms the solid foundation of active and principled election participation.
So, yeah, forgive me for being giddy. It’s not every day that you can be present at the turning of the tide.
****
James Arthur B. Jimenez is director of the Commission on Elections’s Education and Information Department.