To debate or not

The Rules of the Senate, which also cover hearings in aid of legislation and impeachment trials, mention the word “debate” 22 times.

“Debate” appears 10 times in the summary of the Senate’s legislative process.

That’s not surprising. It is expected that rules for legislatures include provisions for debates.

What’s surprising is that some senatorial candidates for the May 2019 polls are reluctant to engage their opponents in a debate. That is sad, because debating is key in the process of crafting laws, which is the main task of the senators they want to be.

By avoiding a debate, these candidates deny the electorate the opportunity to see how powerful their arguments and how strong their convictions are on the many problems that trouble the nation.

It is true that winning a debate does not guarantee victory at the polls, and that not participating in a debate would mean defeat. As far as former senator Lito Lapid is concerned, shunning debates did not hamper his election victory twice before, and he is not planning to start now.

Sen. Grace Poe, the survey front-runner, said she would rather answer questions directly from the people on the campaign trail. That’s not bad, but in a typical campaign sortie, the ordinary voter does not have time to argue with any politician on, say, the return of the death penalty, the proposed review of the US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty or the tax reform law.

Campaign sweeps through public markets do not allow for this kind of exchange between candidates and voters.

In a Twitter exchange, administration Sen. Sonny Angara rejected a challenge to a debate from former Quezon Rep. Erin Tañada of the opposition Liberal Party.

“Not at my expense,” he told Tañada, rather condescendingly, and that the ex-congressman should “rise and fall” on his own merits.

Tañada wanted to debate on rising prices, tobacco tax and minimum wage with his “former colleague and friend,” who was the chief author in the Senate of the TRAIN law that was blamed by some quarters for rising prices last year.

In the coming years, or probably just months, the Senate will have to deal with outstanding issues like Chinese encroachment in the West Philippine Sea and the national cost of their investments in the country, the continuing extrajudicial killings, hunger and poverty and national security, all of which candidates should tackle now.

How will voters know the candidates’ grasp of these vital issues without a proper public discussion of them?

A proper debate, not just a question-and-answer forum, would focus on issues, not personalities. Doing so would help enlighten voters on the candidates’ positions and compare their clashing opinions so that they can judge for themselves who is more deserving of a seat in the Senate.

In addition to clarifying issues, a debate will show whether an aspiring senator has the competence for legislative work, like being able to muster and articulate persuasive arguments to push a proposed law, defend it and make sure the measure passes through the legislative mill.

If the candidate wins, voters could later hold him to the position he had spelled out during the debate. It makes the candidate accountable to stand by his promises once in office.

In other words, as Inquirer columnist Segundo Eclar Romero wrote recently, the debate is for the benefit of the voters, not the candidates.

Presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo said the opposition Otso Diretso wanted a debate “for publicity.”

What’s wrong with that? Publicity would work for the administration candidates as well; the opposition could falter in the exchange, expose their own weaknesses and thus possibly lose votes. Unless, of course, Panelo is fearful in advance of the administration bets’ performance?

What is really troubling is the substitutes for debates resorted to by some candidates — bombastic rallies and blitzkrieg sorties where they bring along starlets to vouch for them, or they themselves clown before the voters, then leave behind pictures and tarps, T-shirts and other campaign mementos, even cash.

This nauseating song-and-dance routine is all too familiar in Philippine elections.

These candidates must think that voters are too shallow to understand the many issues that might be brought up in a debate. But that only reflects their low regard for the electorate.

Candidates who shy away from debates probably think they will lose rather than gain votes by exposing themselves to closer public scrutiny. More talk, more mistakes; as they say. Less talk, less mistakes; and no talk, no mistake. That is debatable.