The 2013 senatorial elections are shaping up to be the most media-scrutinized campaign in Philippine history. Compared to previous elections, media networks have aggressively organized debates among the 33 senatorial candidates either on their own or in partnership with academic institutions and civil society organizations. The social media have also weighed in on the candidates’ credentials, platforms, and promises by carrying live streaming debates or producing infographics of the candidates’ positions. The University of the Philippines, through its Halalan 2013 election project (www.halalan.up.edu.ph), conducts a “fact check” on what candidates say during the television debates.
But do debates really count in shaping the voters’ choice in the Philippines?
There is no question that debates are important in an electoral contest to know a candidate’s fitness for public office. But the political context in which the debate is done, its format and structure, and the media pickup of the event often fail to provide voters the needed answers on who should be given the mandate to represent their interests in government.
Even in the most celebrated democracy in the world, the verdict is split on whether presidential debates determine the winner in elections. Many political analysts generally agree that only four debates have been pivotal in deciding the outcome of a US election—the Lincoln-Douglas debate (1858), which was a “real debate” with each candidate speaking for one and a half hours (with rebuttals) over seven debates; the Kennedy-Nixon debate (1960), where Nixon’s body language (5 o’clock shadow and shifty eyes) lost him the election; Obama-McCain debate (2008), where the Internet and YouTube expanded voters’ access and discussion on issues; and the Obama-Romney debate (2012), where Obama seized the initiative from his opponent after the first debate all the way to Election Day.
Rather than convince the uncommitted voter, presidential debates in the United States tend to reinforce already existing views on candidates. Both Democrats and Republicans tune in to the debates to strengthen their belief in their respective candidates and mobilize those in their party to support their choice.
If debates in the United States have produced mixed results, it has not worked in the Philippines over the past elections. Despite refusing to attend any of the debates, Joseph Estrada won the 1998 presidential election, and Fernando Poe Jr. won (or was cheated in) the 2004 version.
The 2013 senatorial campaign seems to validate this conclusion. The UP Halalan 2013 team monitored the attendance of senatorial candidates in the major television debates and found that some, such as Nancy Binay, remained strong in the surveys despite refusing to attend any of the debates. Binay and Jack Enrile have been pilloried in the social media for their refusal to attend debates or to debate against other candidates, with little effect. Some candidates (Alan Peter Cayetano, Antonio Trillanes, Loren Legarda and Cynthia Villar) attended less than half of the debates and continued to get strong voter preference.
And why did the other candidates attend these debates? It seems that the debates attracted independent candidates, those lagging behind in the surveys, and those who can’t pay for expensive television ads. They try to maximize free television time to increase voter awareness or try to brand themselves with issues such as “anti-dynasty,” “flat tax,” “securitization,” or some nice-sounding buzzwords that, unfortunately, some fail to adequately explain (https://halalan.up.edu.ph/index.php/the-elections/factcheck/153-belgica-on-pork-barrel-funds-and-education-vouchers). Those with perfect debate attendance (Eddie Villanueva, JC de los Reyes, Ramon Montaño, Mitos Magsaysay, Ernesto Maceda, Mars Llasos, Christian Señeres, Lito David, Teddy Casiño, Greco Belgica) should be commended for their diligence. But it remains to be seen whether voters will reward their seriousness and diligence on Election Day.
There are many reasons senatorial debates in the Philippines do not work. For one, unlike in the United States where a single senatorial race is ultimately reduced to a battle between two candidates, we elect 12 senators using a multiparty system that produces too many candidates. Multiple candidates create logistical and policy nightmares for debate organizers, allow candidates to excuse themselves since they know others will show up, and reduce the time allocated for each aspirant to answer questions (https://vote2013.verafiles.org/too-many-bets-too-little-time-for-election-debates/).
Second, political coalitions do not produce coherent platforms of government. Both Team PNoy and UNA are a mixed bag of political parties bound together by a “daang matuwid” mantra and “responsible opposition” tag without categorical positions on most issues. We can never make debates highlight competing choices or force candidates to explain at length the details of their programs under this scenario.
Finally, even with the limitations imposed by sound bites that rarely educate the public, most television stations have improved their debates by tapping experts from the academe and industry to test the policy positions of candidates. But they have been unable to force or shame candidates who refuse to debate.
So how do we make debates in the Philippines count? We can:
• Create an independent nonpartisan Campaign Commission that will organize the debates and require candidates to participate. The debates should be done on free television and cost-shared by major networks, the Commission on Elections, and the academe.
• Bring the debates to the regions to ensure that regional issues are discussed and regional stakeholders can hold side sessions for candidates with their respective constituencies.
• Expand the reach of the social media and do serious voter education in between elections, targeting poorer households and communities.
• Finally, work toward reforming the political party system to make sure we have candidates who truly represent constituencies, support significant issues, and have substantial platforms.
Prospero E. de Vera is vice president for public affairs and a professor of public administration at the University of the Philippines.