Dumbing down

It’s truly a scandal that some of our young people apparently had no idea Apolinario Mabini was a paralytic. Our educational system is failing our young.

The bigger scandal, however, is that our politics has become a means for dumbing down our population.

Elections are supposed to be occasions for consolidating public support on one or the other policy option. An electoral contest is supposed to be a clarifying exercise, where candidates explain their positions and offer the nation alternative paths to the future.

The US is now undertaking its primaries. Primaries are the long selection processes of the major parties, involving their registered supporters in choosing their presidential candidates. The primaries are characterized by intense public debates among the candidates on a wide range of issues. After the candidates of the respective parties are chosen, the respective candidates of both parties then face-off in a series of live public debates to enable voters to assess their choices well.

We do not have the equivalent of primaries. This is due to the weakness of our party system and the personality-oriented behavior of our voters. It seems we have not been able to reverse the dumbing down of our electoral process.

Little wonder that the main candidates have so far relied on political advertising to build voter support. It says a lot that our candidates rely on ad agencies that sell toothpaste or shampoos to our consumers to mount their campaigns. No visions are offered. The mettle of the contenders are not tested during the campaign period itself.

For instance, Mar Roxas now threatens to break all previous records in campaign spending, flooding media outlets with sleek advertising prepared by expensive ad agencies. While the list of public posts he occupied may be long, his list of actual achievement is painfully short. But how do we interrogate him on this when all we get are polished political commercials?

When was the last time we had an honest-to-goodness face-to-face debate between aspirants for the nation’s highest post?

I am hard-pressed to recall any – even as I pride myself to be a serious student of Filipino political history.

I do know why no debate happened in 1998. Joseph Estrada refused to debate and was leading all other contenders by a mile. Since he refused to debate, a debate among the others was pointless.

In 2004, major contender Fernando Poe Jr. refused to debate. He actually even refused to be interviewed on anything. No debate happened.

In 2010, front-runner Benigno Aquino III did not want to debate his rivals. No debate happened. No one was able to interrogate his fitness for the job. That did not serve the nation well.

Not every voter is happy with this situation. When Richard Gordon posted a blog calling on the Comelec to use every means to get the candidates to face each other in a structured debate, his suggestions quickly trended in social media.

There was enthusiasm for Gordon’s suggestion among voters who want to know their candidates better. We are not sure if there is the same enthusiasm among the candidates for doing this.

There is nothing in our elections law that makes it compulsory for the candidates to face their rivals and answer questions from the voters. There is a certain oligarchic air that prevails in our electoral process, reflective of the dominant role played in it by actual oligarchs.

Gordon, nevertheless, strongly urges the Comelec to cajole and convince the candidates to participate in a debate process. This could be the only means for poorer candidates to somehow level the playing field. This will definitely help offset the advantage enjoyed by candidates, especially incumbents who enjoy access to public funds for electoral use, who have large war chest and seek to snow under the campaign process by sheer ability to spend.

Gordon, in fact suggests presidential debates be held in every region, organized by state universities to ensure both fairness and high-mindedness. The man, to be sure, will thrive in this. He is forthright in his ideas and eloquent in his delivery.

I recall, during the national debate on the future of US bases in the Philippines, Dick and I faced off in several forums in the country and abroad. He handily out-talked me. But the final Senate vote on the bases redeemed the position I took in those debates. At any rate, it was an enjoyable joust and our audiences saw the issues and concerns more clearly.

By the way, why isn’t Dick Gordon running for anything this electoral season? He surely has an ardent political base. In the last senatorial elections, with meager campaign funds and reliant almost entirely on the power of his political personality, Dick Gordon landed in 13th place.

Those who care about the quality of our electoral process (and consequently the quality of those who get elected in our dumbed down version of electoral democracy) should apply public pressure on the candidates to face off and discuss their ideas in a debate format. This allows the best means for platforms and proposals to be reasonably tested.

A campaign process disciplined by intermittent public debates may yet make our elections an edifying exercise. This will only happen if the public clamors for it. Failing in this, we will be heir to elections defined by image-makers and empty slogans.

When Sheryl Cruz, for instance, declares her cousin, Grace Poe, is unprepared to be president, we should not just take her word for it. We should be able to make a judgment on that based on what we see and hear in an open debate.