WITH the Pilipinas Presidential Debates on track to kick off on the 21st of February, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) recently released a number of proposed topics. For the debate in Mindanao, slated to be held in Cagayan de Oro, the Comelec suggests that agricultural development, poverty reduction/asset creation and redistribution, charter change, and peace and order be discussed.
For the Visayas leg of the debates, owing largely to the recent typhoons, disaster preparedness and climate- change adaptation, health care, education and fighting corruption seem to be particularly apt for discussion; and for the debate in Luzon, traffic and public transportation, electoral and political reforms, foreign policy, tax reform and national defense.
These are all good topics, and hearing the candidates’ positions on them would certainly be very enlightening. However, I worry about how deeply any of the candidates can dive into any of these topics, given the limitations of the medium. And with the candidates’ representatives insisting that their principals be given three minutes to respond to questions, I have to wonder about the math.
Assuming six candidates participate in the debates, with each being given three minutes to respond to each question, then you’ve already consumed 36 minutes out of the total running time of 120 minutes. And that’s just on one question, imagine if one question had to be asked for each topic.
In other words, it would not do to treat the debates as just another interview, albeit with a funky format, where the ultimate goal is to elicit the best possible—but nevertheless canned—answers from the candidates. If the Pilipinas Debates were like that, how would they be any different from any of the media forums already being staged by everyone?
To my mind, and with apologies up front if this comes off as condescending in any way, the debates should not be about who can cram the most detailed plan of action into the fewest possible minutes. Candidates having detailed plans of action, after all, shouldn’t be remarkable or impressive—it should be something the electorate can take for granted.
Instead, I would love for the debates to be a showcase for presidential timbre.
Timbre is essentially a musical term, referring to the overall quality of a sound and, ultimately, its ability to evoke emotion. Used in politics, timbre similarly refers to the ability of a candidate to evoke an emotional response—confidence, anger, inspiration—in the electorate. And it is what televised presidential debates were made for.
It’s fairly easy to surround yourself with supporters and boosters during a campaign sortie. It’s quite a different thing when you try to outshine stiff competition on the same stage. Richard Nixon found that out to his great dismay, when he squared off against John F. Kennedy.
Nixon at that time was an accomplished statesman having served almost eight years as vice president, after a distinguished career in Congress. In contrast, JFK only had an unremarkable single Senate term to boast of. And, yet, when they met onstage in the first televised debate in American history, Nixon was routed by JFK in the public opinion.
The numerous post-debate analyses agreed that Nixon lost because he looked unhealthy, shifty and defensive, whereas JFK gave the appearance of youthful vigor, directness and unswerving calm. This conclusion that visuals—not just the looks, but the manner the debaters engaged each other, the confidence they projected and the minutiae of their reactions—were key was validated, albeit in a roundabout way, by the fact that people who only listened to the debate on radio gave Nixon the debate by a small margin. Substance-wise, therefore, both Nixon and JFK were evenly matched, except that JFK resonated with the voting public better.
In a word: timbre.
The Pilipinas Debates, I think, will be a golden opportunity for the Filipino electorate to see which of the many candidates they can rally behind. Focus on issues should not be lost—agreed. And the opportunity to have candidates go on record about platforms and so on, should not be squandered—true enough. But the Pilipinas Debates have the potential to be so much more than just another glorified forum, where everyone gets the chance to talk around each other and at the public.
It’s a chance to get under the candidates’ skins and see what makes them tick. It’s a chance to see them explain to us—the voters—why they’re a much better choice than the person to their left or their right onstage. It’s an opportunity to go beyond the sterile blandness of policy, to finally see why we should be inspired to unity.
Here’s hoping we can make it that way.
****
The first presidential debate will be held in Cagayan de Oro City on the 21st of February 2016. The second debate will be in the Visayas on the 20th of March. The third will be on the 24th of April in Luzon. The locales for the second and third debates haven’t been settled yet, but venues have been tentatively identified in Iloilo and Pangasinan. The vice-presidential debate, scheduled for the 10th of April, will be held in Metro Manila.
James Arthur B. Jimenez is director of the Commission on Elections’s Education and Information Department.