Stand

Filipinos eat politics for breakfast. It is unfortunate, though, that the country’s political scene has never been in good order. It would seem that the nation’s fervent interest in the affairs of the state is not doing it any good.

Or, perhaps, the electorate is just doing it all wrong when choosing people to lead the country, from the barangay hall all the way to Malacañan Palace. It’s curious, for instance, that in the so many years of the Philippine Republic, it was only recently that a public debate was organized among the presidential aspirants. It was far from the kind of presidential debate we’ve seen of the Americans, all right, but the attempt alone is a positive step.

It is safe to say that the Filipinos’ idea of presidential debates is influenced by the American practice. Filipinos, though, being yet new at it, were not quite affected by the intellectual exchange during the presidential debates in the last elections.  This is at least proven in the outcome.

The noticeable interest among many Filipinos in the ongoing presidential debates in the US may be a sign that the people of this country want to learn more of this very informative, educational ‘art form’. If so – to make the experience more interesting and involving – perhaps it is better for those following the US presidential debates on television to keep a scorecard. What one is to do is to rate the candidates based on certain criteria.

Looks. If the candidate cannot even make himself or herself look well, what ability does he or she have to make the country look good to the world? It may seem like two different bananas but actually the principle involved is the same. Does the candidate even look the part he or she is aspiring for? This is so simple a gauge that people doubt if it works – well, it does.

The Economy. Listen closely to the candidates’ statements regarding the economy. It’s so easy to come up with motherhood statements these days; one only needs to borrow beautiful lines from the movies. If he or she mentions a sunny economic destination where he or she wants to take the country, listen well if the candidate also has clear ideas of the way there.

Morality. Watch out for each candidate’s position on such issues as criminality and livelihood on the grassroots level. Therese issues directly affect each other, and they affect the moral values of people, too. How would he or she ensure decent income so that people may not resort to illegal means in order to defray their cost of living? How would he or she balance being moral and being practical? Where does he or she stand on the issue of abortion and extra-judicial killings? If the candidate preaches morality, does he or she embody what he or she preaches?

Sovereignty. What about the candidate’s concept of national territory. Is it important to him or her? If so, what does he or she intend to preserve or even promote it the national territorial interests?.

Truthfulness. There are things that leak through in the process of the debate. There are always cracks that show up in the heat of the exchange. One may raise certain points that the other is not ready about. That’s the moment of truth, something that had not been rehearsed beforehand and, thus, comes out raw – and true.

These are just a few of the things to watch out for in political debates. These are good to see in debates as compared to ordinary political campaigns. In a debate, a candidate’s pronouncements get to be questioned by his opponent, and so an observant voter can get closer to the truth.

 In short, in a debate a candidate may be measured directly by his or her ‘stand’. He or she is gauged by the way he or she holds up physically, by his or her appearance. Another thing, the candidate is rated according to his or her stand on important issues.

But most of all, the voters will judge candidates according to what gets exposed about them (the candidates) during the debates. The voters will decide whether they can stand or are driven crazy by the personalities presented to them in the debates.