Refining Democracy: The Presidential Debate

October 23, 2012

Refining Democracy: The Presidential Debate

By T.S. Khanna, October 23, 2012

“I am no Bush, and you are no Bill Clinton”---Anon.  That is no debate; it is only a drama designed to sway the audience. Debate is not a dispute to be settled by arguments on matters for which there is no trustworthy evidence; such an exercise is intellectual waste.  Debate is not a racing match where the results can be measured objectively and accurately. “Who won the debate?” is a meaningless question.  Moreover, debate is not a discussion by the candidates to show how much they agree or differ.

The purpose of presidential debate should be to enlighten the public with the presentation of true facts about national affairs, ideologies and policies of the political parties, lessons learned from noteworthy political experiences, personalities of the candidates, their character, and potential.  The voters then may be able to make rational judgment in choosing the most suitable candidate.  The debate should be designed to serve that purpose.

The present practice does not serve the purpose.  In the absence of any regulations, the candidates use forged/fabricated/fake facts, tinctured with discreetly selected truth blends to present their cases under a cloak of authenticity.  Time restricted sound-bite-responses provide candidates easy escapes from full exposure of their thoughts and explanations.

Well rehearsed, forceful presentation of false facts or hypothetical projections with Herculean confidence in front of the drama loving TV audience is required to “win a debate”.  Here, the age old weakness of democracy is best exploited; the only qualification needed for the road to power is competitive oratory, not a genuine heart for public service.

However, there is still hope in American politics.  Nearly 80% of the active voters are party loyalists, divided 50/50, between the Republican and the Democratic parties.  For them, the debate is like a football game without score.  Their candidate always “wins the debate”.  The remaining 20% are open minded non-partisan voters hungry for the facts and truth to make rational judgment in the national interest. The debate may be designed to satisfy their need.

To initiate discussion on the matter, some suggestions are offered:

1. Each candidate may be required to publish and post on the internet his/her election manifesto at least eight weeks prior to the scheduled debate.  All the facts or data used in the manifesto must have the verification by the Election Commission;
2. A Supreme Court Justice may chair the debate with authority to keep the questions and responses on track, but not necessarily time limited;
3. Two former Presidents, one from each party, may join the Supreme Court Justice to form the panel for asking questions;
4. At the opening, each candidate may be allowed up to fifteen minutes to present his/her manifesto, point out the differences with the opponent, and critique the opponent’s manifesto;
5. Each candidate may then be allowed to ask the opponent five questions without any time restriction in response;
6. Each former president then may ask the candidate of the opposite party five questions, without time restriction on responses;
7. Five questions from the media and the general public may be funneled thru the Chairman for each candidate to respond without time restriction;
8. To avoid any personal argument or sparring, all the responses may be addressed to the Chairman, and;
9. Before the end, each candidate may present his/her closing statement.

Two or three debates may be held to cover all the issues. Such debates, besides serving the non-partisan voters, may even start breaking lose party loyalists, serving the cause of genuine democracy.