If you ask me, the ?star? of ?First Edition,? the first Philippine Daily Inquirer presidential debate held Monday at the UP Theater, was Sen. Jamby Madrigal. The senator abandoned a re-election run for senator and instead chose to mount a quixotic, some say foolish, bid for the presidency.
But she is having the time of her life. During the two-and-a-half hours of the debate, it was Madrigal who livened up things considerably. The two-minute or so limit imposed on the candidates, and the decisive way this was enforced, made for a briskly paced procedure, but for the most part there were few fireworks, with most of them keeping to a few narrow pat answers. Save for Madrigal. Asked if she could say something positive about Sen. Manuel Villar, her bête noire for some time now, Madrigal said she liked the way he dyed his hair. When she started hitting ?rich? candidates who could spend millions to hire movie-star endorsers, another dig at Villar, she was reminded that she herself had used a movie star endorser. ?Yes I did,? she admitted, ?and I have seen the folly of my ways.?
Asked what role her husband, a French man who is said to come from noble stock, would play in a Jamby presidency, the senator said he would stay away from politics primarily because he is a foreigner. But while her husband provides her ?support,? she said, he will play no official or unofficial role whatsoever. ?He will be an FG, because he is a French gentleman,? she declared, firing another shot at another favorite target, the First Gentleman Mike Arroyo and his wife, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Unfortunately, the senator?s unbridled remarks are only indicative that she feels she has nothing to lose. Unlike the ?front-runners? who feel compelled to stick to the script and avoid any possible slip that could cut into their lead, someone in her situation may feel garnering public attention and standing out from the field is worth more than any possible offense or faux pas she may commit.
* * *
INDEED, as the string of debates has produced a kind of debate-fatigue not just among the candidates but even among voters, I?m finding that it?s the ?bottom feeders,? a term that candidate Nicky Perlas attributed to the Inquirer, who?re providing much of the novelty factor.
When I posed the question to him on what role, if any, civil society groups would play in a Perlas administration, Perlas surprised with his plan to create a Cabinet portfolio for ?civil society affairs,? which would formalize relations between the executive department and the country?s numerous civic groups, NGOs and people?s organizations. Certainly, a new concept.
On the other hand, Kapatiran?s JC de los Reyes, an Olongapo City councilor, exposed what I saw as his ?tunnel vision,? his approach to issues of governance that lay solely within the narrow parameters of his conservative Catholic outlook, and the views of the institutional Church.
To a question posed by a reader who is a nurse on how he would address the positive aspects of the RH bill, which failed to make it through Congress due to vigorous (and undemocratic) lobbying by the bishops, De los Reyes remarked that he believes the bill was ?dangerous? because most of the contraceptives in the country cause abortions, a nugget I could only raise my eyebrows at.
* * *
BEFORE THE debate proper, we had a chance to interact with the candidates. I sidled over to Sen. Richard Gordon and asked him if he didn?t think ?we already have had too many debates.?
?I don?t agree with that,? Gordon remarked, chiding me for even voicing such a thought since ?the only people who are against debates are those supportive of the idea that only the rich have the right to run for office.?
He may be right. Without the debates which are covered by media, then only those candidates who can spend millions (billions?) on political advertisements will have a chance to bring themselves and their ideas to voters.
But I think one reason Gordon loves debates is because he does so well in them. Articulate and quick on the draw, he relishes difficult questions and can talk about any subject (but especially about his experience in Subic) for hours on end. I suspect the strict time limits were conceived with him in mind.
* * *
I?M REALLY of two minds about presidential debates. On one hand, I think they provide voters more substantial grounds on which to base their choices. Certainly, more substantial than the information they would otherwise get only in 30-second TV ads, radio jingles, or bullet-pointed flyers. A debate provides voters a close, personal look at the candidates under stressful conditions, certainly a test for intelligence, wit, bravery and self-confidence, important qualities in a leader.
But a debate will not reveal to us a candidate?s capacity for leadership, honesty or integrity. In fact, I think it favors the duplicitous, the golden-tongued deceivers.
It is easy enough to be articulate and to hit the right buttons with rhetoric and favored themes. In fact, in politics, the gleam of idealism often fades in the face of partisan pressures and public cynicism. Without the core of character that lies within, it is easy enough to lose one?s way.
So while I will continue following the debates, and will even accede to take part in one, I am guarded about their being a true, or even reliable, measure of the candidates? fitness for office. Maybe we should just look on presidential debates as entertainment, albeit more informative than most.
And make sure you have a candidate like Sen. Jamby Madrigal to stir up the proceedings. Would the entertainment factor have leveled up with President Erap joining the cast?
