Debates and Democratic Culture
The last pre-election debate in Peru between Ollanta Humala and Keiko Fujimori, although plagued by accusations and low blows, did not upset the balance in favor of one candidate or another. However, it met its goal of encouraging the direct participation of citizens in the electoral process and, in the process, strengthened democratic culture.
Although candidates are usually reluctant to debate for fear that their advantages in the polls will disappear, there are no reliable studies to ultimately indicate whether they will win or lose an election. This was demonstrated in Peru — and earlier in the confrontations between presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain in the United States, where this tradition was institutionalized and hardened after a series of televised debates between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960.
However, what is certain is that these kinds of contests are useful in making the electoral process transparent, fair and competitive. They do not usually influence those with party loyalties or set positions, but are vital for the undecided.
They are useful for directly assessing the attitudes and proposals of a candidate under pressure, without contaminating the media, campaign advertising and political rallies where the public is treated as a mass, emotionally blinded by slogans, symbols and speeches.
The reluctance to discuss directly in election campaigns also reveals the low level of maturity, openness and transparency of a political system. The more authoritarian a government is, the less room there is to discuss and tolerate ideas outside the “official truth.”
Proof of this is that it is a practice unthinkable in regimes like those of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in Argentina, who agreed to their presidencies through speeches in acts of propaganda, without exchanging arguments with their opponents or without confronting journalists and the media.
By contrast, other systems that have been characterized by greater political openness and tolerance — such as those of Chile, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay, Panama and Costa Rica — have incorporated this healthy habit of the election campaign creating greater trust and direct public involvement for decades.
In Argentina, where debates are not part of the presidential race, it seems that it can no longer avoid the tendency; positive examples are motivated by the media. In Cordoba, the newspaper La Voz del Interior has been creating the habit for 30 years among candidates for governor, mayor and legislator.
But to organize them, as it will surely do in the gubernatorial election on Aug. 7, it will have to convince the candidates, since it is not incorporated as a mandatory element of political culture.
The United States was no different, even though the tradition goes back over 150 years to when senators Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas faced each other, until electoral law was reformed and the creation of the Commission on Presidential Debates — an independent non-profit organization that took the weight of the organization to the television networks — transformed the debate as an essential part of each election. Similar attitudes followed in Spain, France and Italy, among other countries, where discussions are obligatory in the political process.
Beyond that, in several Latin American countries including Argentina, where there are bills where presidential debates are mandatory, it is important to encourage them at all costs. They are as vital to the direct rapport between citizens and the governing party as the control of political parties and the oversight of international observers are to the transparency of the electoral process.
But for pre-election debates — as well as discussions and tolerance of ideas — to be part of democratic culture, it is not enough to only encourage the habit of the ruling class.
There must also be incorporation of secondary and university level education, motivating students in competitions. This was a successful formula in the United States.
Although candidates are usually reluctant to debate for fear that their advantages in the polls will disappear, there are no reliable studies to ultimately indicate whether they will win or lose an election. This was demonstrated in Peru — and earlier in the confrontations between presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain in the United States, where this tradition was institutionalized and hardened after a series of televised debates between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960.
However, what is certain is that these kinds of contests are useful in making the electoral process transparent, fair and competitive. They do not usually influence those with party loyalties or set positions, but are vital for the undecided.
They are useful for directly assessing the attitudes and proposals of a candidate under pressure, without contaminating the media, campaign advertising and political rallies where the public is treated as a mass, emotionally blinded by slogans, symbols and speeches.
The reluctance to discuss directly in election campaigns also reveals the low level of maturity, openness and transparency of a political system. The more authoritarian a government is, the less room there is to discuss and tolerate ideas outside the “official truth.”
Proof of this is that it is a practice unthinkable in regimes like those of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in Argentina, who agreed to their presidencies through speeches in acts of propaganda, without exchanging arguments with their opponents or without confronting journalists and the media.
By contrast, other systems that have been characterized by greater political openness and tolerance — such as those of Chile, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay, Panama and Costa Rica — have incorporated this healthy habit of the election campaign creating greater trust and direct public involvement for decades.
In Argentina, where debates are not part of the presidential race, it seems that it can no longer avoid the tendency; positive examples are motivated by the media. In Cordoba, the newspaper La Voz del Interior has been creating the habit for 30 years among candidates for governor, mayor and legislator.
But to organize them, as it will surely do in the gubernatorial election on Aug. 7, it will have to convince the candidates, since it is not incorporated as a mandatory element of political culture.
The United States was no different, even though the tradition goes back over 150 years to when senators Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas faced each other, until electoral law was reformed and the creation of the Commission on Presidential Debates — an independent non-profit organization that took the weight of the organization to the television networks — transformed the debate as an essential part of each election. Similar attitudes followed in Spain, France and Italy, among other countries, where discussions are obligatory in the political process.
Beyond that, in several Latin American countries including Argentina, where there are bills where presidential debates are mandatory, it is important to encourage them at all costs. They are as vital to the direct rapport between citizens and the governing party as the control of political parties and the oversight of international observers are to the transparency of the electoral process.
But for pre-election debates — as well as discussions and tolerance of ideas — to be part of democratic culture, it is not enough to only encourage the habit of the ruling class.
There must also be incorporation of secondary and university level education, motivating students in competitions. This was a successful formula in the United States.