“Candidate to his rival: You know, I never looked at the Kawit deal that way before but you’re actually completely right. I guess I’ll just concede the election to you right now. You are definitely the better candidate. Congratulations.” --- Paraphrased and modified from Guillermo Jimenez’s theory on “futility and irrationality” of political debates
Even the most optimistic organizers of formal debates between candidates for elective office do not expect or hope for a debater to change his mind on a disputed issue in the elections.
Not the IBP or lawyers association that is setting up a face-off between Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña and challenger Vice Mayor Edgar Labella.
A debate will hardly change the position of voters who already decided whom to vote for, more so when they have actively engaged in the campaign in whatever scale or intensity. A debate is supposed to influence undecided voters, most of whom, however, don’t bother to compare virtues or ideologies of candidates.
And most politicians scoff at the “naïve premise that they can be convinced by the logical arguments of their enemies.” Would Osmeña ever be converted by Labella’s dazzling logic?
Civilized, rational
A formal debate though is the civilized and rational way to thresh out conflicting claims of opposing camps, instead of the name-calling during the campaign season. In Mandaue City, for example, the voter, based on the guide of competing propagandists, is made to choose between an allegedly corrupt returnee and an allegedly lecherous reelectionist.
To the organizers such as the IBP, it projects the group of “abogados” as civic-spirited and patriotic by trying to bring some reason and order to a near-madhouse where voters choose largely on the bases of personal favor from the candidate, pressure of family, boss or landlord, or plain cash handout. At best, the others pick their officials on sheer ignorance of issues, shade the ballot on gut feel or because they’re better known or once they shook hands.
Motive of gladiators
Besides, a debate offers good entertainment, especially when a wannabe mayor or governor fumbles or sticks his foot in the mouth.
To the candidates themselves, the gladiators in the arena, the motive is something else. The overwhelming reason for saying “yes” or “no” to a debate is not whether it will help push one’s advocacy. In the Cebu City debate: for Mayor Tomas, to promote the Kawit deal, or for Vice Mayor Edgar, to scuttle it or change the contract terms. That should’ve been done before the City Council voted for it.
Why agree to a debate? Rule of thumb is that one is trailing in the surveys and the debate could reverse the trend.
Or one is so confident of winning the election that taking the risk of a fiasco during the debate is part of the narcissistic thrill. Vice Mayor Edgar, in saying yes, wondered aloud why his former mentor in politics—who once advised him and others in BOPK “never to agree to a debate if you are ahead” —would now agree to one.
Reason for refusal
Former mayor Mike Rama, another ex-BOPK stalwart and former long-time disciple of Tomas, is not enthusiastic and initially rejects the offer. He must be heeding Tomas’s advice. Rep. Jonas Cortes, who’s challenging Mandaue Mayor Luigi Quisumbing for the City Hall seat, also refused to debate. No pressing issue to resolve, he says.
Organizers cannot drag a candidate to the debate.
There is no law requiring a candidate’s presence at a forum where he risks being humiliated by his adversary in a war of words. Like “honesty,” it’s not in the Constitution or any of the election statutes.
How about calling the decliner a “chicken”? They’ve been called much worse: “kawatan,” “kurap,” “adik,” “mananapaw,” and similar defamation which in other times would’ve sent them rushing to sue for libel.
Risk of disaster
In 1967, news archives tell us, then governor Rene Espina faced Cebu City mayor Serging Osmeña for a formal debate at the old ABS-CBN studio along P. del Rosario St. (now Natalio Bacalso Ave.)
When Espina prefaced a question with, “In the Corpus Juris Secundum...,” Serging interrupted, “What is that?” The studio audience laughed. “You came to Cebu to save democracy?” Serging answered, “Yes.” “You could also march to Danao and save democracy there too.” “No,” said Serging. Espina: “Why not?” Serging answered, “I’m afraid to die.” The audience roared.
In its post-debate issue, The Freeman headlined a rhetorical question, “Who got the most in the Osmeña-Espina debate?” Disasters like that. The sky can fall on one camp during the debate.