Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Imperfect but Essential Presidential Debates

Imperfect but essential presidential debates

Imperfect but essential presidential debates The presidential debate, which means putting the candidates for the highest magistracy in the State face to face, has become so important that in other countries it is part of the activities programmed by the governing bodies of the elections. Some nations, like the US, have turned them into a whole democratic tradition.  The importance of these debates lies in neutrality; that is to say, that they are carried out without any type of influence on the part of the political organizations that participate in the electoral contest. If we refer to the one in the United States, they are in charge of a commission that strives to keep distance from the Democratic and Republican parties.  Neutrality is necessary, essential, for an even more important element: credibility. In the example we take, how would you trust the neutrality of a debate in which the organizer would be the Democratic Party or a clear influence of the Republican Party can be seen? As partisan interference is avoided, or minimized, the voter has the peace of mind of being able to appreciate a confrontation of ideas, or verbas, that is not inclined towards any candidacy.  This cannot be said about the debate on Saturday, where the seven presidential candidates were present, since the entities that organized it have an evident sympathy, to say the least, for the blue party.  And in the second, held yesterday under the patronage of two national corporate entities - one of journalists and the other of businessmen -, the largest public university in the country and a Catholic institution that works in political, social and economic spheres, they were not present or the first nor the third of the candidates leading the electoral preference polls.  In both cases, the confrontation of ideas, proposals and arguments about how to govern the country that those who aspire to these high positions have has had a limited space.  But it would be wrong to pretend that these debates, the only ones of national scope, have not been useful for the essential purpose that these meetings have for the voters: to better understand the positions of the candidates and to get a less uncertain idea of ​​the personality of each one of them. they.  Thus, from the witty proposals of one of the presidential candidates, to the severe attitude of the only candidate, passing through the aplomb or the vacillations of the seven, and the absences - and their justifications - of those who did not attend yesterday's debate are elements that contribute to consolidating or correcting the electoral decision of those who already know who to vote for and help to clear up the uncertainties of the undecided.


The presidential debate, which means putting the candidates for the highest magistracy in the State face to face, has become so important that in other countries it is part of the activities programmed by the governing bodies of the elections. Some nations, like the US, have turned them into a whole democratic tradition.

The importance of these debates lies in neutrality; that is to say, that they are carried out without any type of influence on the part of the political organizations that participate in the electoral contest. If we refer to the one in the United States, they are in charge of a commission that strives to keep distance from the Democratic and Republican parties.

Neutrality is necessary, essential, for an even more important element: credibility. In the example we take, how would you trust the neutrality of a debate in which the organizer would be the Democratic Party or a clear influence of the Republican Party can be seen? As partisan interference is avoided, or minimized, the voter has the peace of mind of being able to appreciate a confrontation of ideas, or verbas, that is not inclined towards any candidacy.

This cannot be said about the debate on Saturday, where the seven presidential candidates were present, since the entities that organized it have an evident sympathy, to say the least, for the blue party.

And in the second, held yesterday under the patronage of two national corporate entities - one of journalists and the other of businessmen -, the largest public university in the country and a Catholic institution that works in political, social and economic spheres, they were not present or the first nor the third of the candidates leading the electoral preference polls.

In both cases, the confrontation of ideas, proposals and arguments about how to govern the country that those who aspire to these high positions have has had a limited space.

But it would be wrong to pretend that these debates, the only ones of national scope, have not been useful for the essential purpose that these meetings have for the voters: to better understand the positions of the candidates and to get a less uncertain idea of ​​the personality of each one of them. they.

Thus, from the witty proposals of one of the presidential candidates to the severe attitude of the only candidate, passing through the aplomb or the vacillations of the seven, and the absences - and their justifications - of those who did not attend yesterday's debate are elements that contribute to consolidating or correcting the electoral decision of those who already know who to vote for and help to clear up the uncertainties of the undecided.

Post a Comment for "Imperfect but Essential Presidential Debates"