The official campaign period for national position aspirants has started and all candidates have already made their moves. From caravans, motorcades, campaign rallies, etc. News networks and outlets also kicked off their interviews and forums with the candidates but the highlight of every election is its officially sponsored Commission on Elections (COMELEC) presidential debates, where they are to discuss every issue the country is facing and also issues concerning the candidates themselves. Attendance of the debate is not mandatory but absence should have their supporters think twice in choosing them as their leader.
One particular candidate amused everyone by skipping on official events, citing different excuses but attending various mundane activities. They also attended a private-sponsored and questionable debate owned by their supporter’s network. Since then a notable amount of posts from their former supporters expressed their disappointment in the said candidate and supported another one. “Why tell us this?” our point is; debates help the people choose their candidates, especially those who are still undecided on who to vote. It also lets us see how these aspirants will solve the current issues our country is in. We have the pandemic, the rising percentage of joblessness, the West Philippine Sea dispute, added to that is the rising gas prices. We desire to see or hear how they will be able to solve these issues and put the country in a "real" golden era where people could actually live off with minimum wages and still have left to save.
Debates can show how fast a person could think on the spot and make a decision to cull a rapidly expanding problem, a very useful skill for a future leader of a country. In this nation that we live in, being fluent in speeches is one important aspect a politician must have, but fluency is not everything. You could deliver a wonderful-sounding speech but what about the contents? You could have said something about corruption but you just went into circles with it without solving them. Personally, I prefer a candidate that might not have the best fluency in speaking but has a very detailed way of solving a problem. Debating is also a way to clear the people’s suspicion of a certain candidate, giving them a chance to defend themselves and explain their sides to the masses. It also reveals the debater’s morals by hearing their reactions to certain topics with the likes of same-sex marriage, death penalty, etc. It is vital to know their moral standpoint because usually in making decisions, a president is never alone, they always have a group of advisers telling them the pros and cons of every choice. But if it comes to the point that the president has to decide and does not have time to consult their advisers, their morality is the first one they rely on, “Will this decision be beneficial to my country? Will this help my fellow countrymen?”.
To sum up, debating helps people decide which person to vote for in the upcoming elections. Once the final bell rings, signaling the end of the discussion, the only way to know the result is after the elections. We cannot advocate for unity if we are selective and exclusive on who we are advocating for. Because once we elect these people, they are not only governing their supporters, they are going to govern the whole country with a different set of beliefs and ideologies. It is only our right to know why we should vote for these people by hearing and seeing them when they are needed the most.
“A leader of a nation is at the pinnacle of it and, at the same time, he is its slave. The leader must be more than willing to commit anything in order to ensure the nation's survival.” -Mori Ogai
Comments