IN the debate over the necessity of debates between and among senatorial candidates, a reelectionist or former government official is presumed to be at a disadvantage while his newcomer challenger enjoys the benefit of the doubt. A challenger has lots of points to pick on, a reelectionist can only defend his record, hardly ever a perfect piece of work.
The field is wide open for the newcomer. He sees the other side’s mistakes, loopholes, unfulfilled promises, a mine field of missed opportunities, contradictory statements, misstatements, wrong choice of words. The sky’s the limit, there are no borders, barriers, boundaries, everyone on the opposite fence is fair game. Whatever the other party says is fodder for their livestock, whatever they don’t say is a sign of weakness.
Television debates are meant to enlighten the audience, but there’s an unspoken rule among broadcasters that has not been codified. The rule is that debates rarely change a viewer’s attitude. Someone who hates Candidate Ugh and watches him on TV will continue to hate him during and after the show.
Taken in that context, a candidate who’s pure as the driven snow – one who has never had the exposure, and that’s a loaded word, exposure as in “exposed” – has a better chance of gaining a few points than the familiar candidate who’s not exactly telegenic, sympathetic, convincing, or charming. Richard Nixon lost the debate and the US presidency to John F. Kennedy because JFK was a fresh face with a winning personality. The older, more experienced Nixon was sweating under the harsh studio lights, which made him look nervous. On what intellectual points did one candidate score over the other? No one cares, or remembers.
Comelec has denied us the chance to watch with horror, amusement, boredom or all of the above, the more than 60 senatorial candidates slugging it out in a formal debate. Fortunately or unfortunately as Comelec explains, there’s not enough time (?) to organize such a mass exhibition of aspirations (or lack of inspiration) but it’s the law, you cannot force someone whose mere qualification is based on age, address, and literacy, to shine brilliantly as an orator/debater.
