Election debates and the art of refusal
A debate is a conflict. A conflict necessitates the duty for real conversation that regards others with complexity and understanding. A conflict does not require agreement, but it does demand recognition. It works toward a resolution without expecting reconciliation. Where there is unresolved pain, an interactive conversation can lay foundations for psychological and emotional repair, even if forgiveness is tenuous. At the very least, a debate can create spaces for honesty through mutual kindness and soften the harsh edges of misconstrued beliefs. To debate, to face conflict, is a gift. Debating is unifying.
A refusal is silence. Silence rejects accountability and dismisses healing. It shuns and excludes. The silence is a relief for the person who withholds, but it produces anxiety and uncertainty for others. Where there are repeated invitations to face the conflict, the refusal doubles down. Others are made to believe that the perceived unfair treatment, disguised as accusations of bias, is real even though the more likely threat is the unraveling of a horrible truth. The silence recasts the discomfort as a sign that something bad is being done onto the withholding person. The unilateral refusal is self-righteous indignation to claim victimhood.
We can say no. This is an essential condition for enabling our ability to imagine and construct an individual future. We say no to certain foods because we intend a particular body. We say no to a career opportunity because we reject burnout. We say no to an intimate relationship because we imagine love differently. We say no to touch, yearning, and manipulation because our basic dignity is sacred.
A refusal to participate in an election debate is something else entirely. This is not sacred, it is petulant. It does not construct an individual future. It disrupts everyone else’s future. It legitimizes the freedom of choice but lacks the self-awareness that choice necessitates. Like all our freedoms, just because we can, it doesn’t mean we should.
A scheduling conflict is code word for the refusal to face real conflict. There are limits to our material and mental bandwidth on any given day. Whatever productivity tips our hyper-optimizing, overly scheduled culture has imagined, the truth is that we cannot be anywhere, doing everything, all the time. Our scheduling conflicts are more benign. We have another meeting, our child is sick, an elderly parent has a dental appointment. An election debate, however, is not a dental appointment.
The criticisms against the refusal are also too narrow. The refusal is either a political strategy or a danger to democracy. These are strange to me. If the silence is a complementary tool within a campaign’s overall arsenal, this is not a criticism. It is an identification of a potentially winning hand. This naming is framed as a criticism because it is far easier to reject its boogeyman qualities—in other words, contextualized within the familiar “corruption” storyline—than to accept that perhaps the other candidates might not be as politically savvy.
The so-called danger to democracy is also an odd abstraction, if a bit hyperbolic. Debates do benefit democracy. They enable voters to make informed choices. They illuminate policy positions and allay fears on contentious issues. Candidates, too, can be held to account for their campaign promises.
These are political constructions that ignore the differences among the electorate. If a candidate consistently leads public opinion polls but has yet to appear in a national debate, does this signal the deterioration of democracy? Does it mean that swaths of the public are brainwashed or so gullible as to fall for motherhood statements? Or is it a tip-off to opposition candidates’ inability or unwillingness to make meaningful inroads beyond the “awareness” narrative so favored by pundits and academic elites? Is the opposition’s view of a sizable chunk of the electorate so paternalistic that their voting choices are misrepresented as illogical? This heightened rhetoric reflects a culture of overreaction to resume-building aptitude and underreaction to oppressive systems.
The objective of an election is not to preserve democracy. The goal is to win. Only one campaign team seems to get this.
—————–
Dr. Ronald del Castillo is a consultant on social and behavior change communication and was professor of psychology, public health, and social policy. The views here are his own.
