The noisier citizens participate in a debate #PiliPinasDebates2016 the better for expanding electoral democratic space

     The noisier the citizenry participate in a debate, the better for expanding electoral democratic space.
        The more people post strong opinions on an on-going debate, the better for increasing electoral participation.
         The fierier the exchange of words during a debate is, the better for resolving electoral indecision.
       Hopefully, light follows fire and heat.
       We want more debates rather than less, the outrageous with the reasonable, the witty with the wafty, the perennial pikón with the persistent  pitík.
        The usual, trite criticism of electoral debates is that these lack substance, or they lack policy discussion. But lack of platform discussion, or even lack of differences in program of government, is inherent in traditional political parties — and it is the nature of elite electoral politics. (Big words).
        (Students of history know that the unwritten rule in traditional electoral democracy is that members of the elite alternate in power without changing the basic economic and political framework of government.)
        HOWEVER, every generation of enlightened citizenry is more intelligent than the previous one, the patronizing or pejorative “millennial” appellation notwithstanding.
        The more debates there are, the more revelations there would be of the character of the candidates, and the nature of the traditional political parties they represent.
        If you want the citizenry to spit out and reject the recalcitrant with the corrupt, the incompetent with the inane, the traditional political elite with their traditional billionaire padrinos, saturate them with debates — show the real lack of intelligent choices. These would expose the candidates and the real nature of their parties.
       Flood the citizenry with debates, and they will rise up and make the most intelligent choice for our generation.                                                    ♣  ♣  

Pls also see other WordPressers’ posts on the theme “Perspective” at: 


2 thoughts on “The noisier citizens participate in a debate #PiliPinasDebates2016 the better for expanding electoral democratic space

    By Nina Tablan – Villarete
    Media 230 11
    March 22, 2016

    The cause of the delay of the live broadcast via Channel 5 of the Pilipinas 2016 Debate in Cebu Sunday, March 20, was a give-away and left me unsurprised when the cause of it was finally revealed. The BTS aired after the “heated” and controversial special program was entertaining, but seriously? admittedly at first, and it really brought down the tension after watching the main program, but it made me think,” Hey, are these people vying for the highest position in our land? Are they the potential leaders of our country? OMG! Then my son, who would be voting for the first time, asked me, “ Nay, tingnan mo, iyan ang mga magiging leader sa ating bansa…”

    Onstage I watched four people engaging in a catfight, with one in particular appearing cool in giving his comments that goes with the saying,” simple lang pero rock! ‘ which means opinion was subtly said but the underlying meaning is deep and gives a grave impact to its receiver. It was good in a way seeing most of them maintain or lose their composure ,it exposed their true colors.

    Being Public Officials vying for the highest position in the Executive Branch of our government, I noticed many comments made by the four Presidentiables fall under some categories of fair comment that made me swivel in my seat while watching like: the heated debate between Binay and Grace Poe on her nationality issue with the latter beginning to lose control and started to be unstoppable in firing words to Binay that started off like ; Binay to Poe : “Paano ka magiging tunay na Pilipino eh sumumpa ka sa Oath of Allegiance mo sa Amerika na you will abjure- Ikakahiya mo ang pinaggalingan mo?… Hindi ka tunay na Pilipino kasi kinahiya mo ang …” which Poe took her turn to lambast Binay with the following answers such as “… narito ka nga nakatira sa bansa pero nangulimbat ka naman ng pera” ; “ ano sama kung hindi manatili dito at magnakaw lamang” and the two simultaneously had a heated unstoppable argument.

    The said example falls under the category of governance and catch-all, banking on the interest of the public that gravely appeals to them on Fair Comment. Poe is running for the highest government position in the land and this issue of her being qualified in terms of nationality was presented by Binay citing his opinion as a matter of public interest. Maybe he wanted to prove with his documents how can a Presidentiable be allowed to administer this whole nation if her allegiance is for/ to another country? And is she really qualified despite the fact that the SC gave her a go signal? But was Poe able to prove BInay wrong with his argumentative statement? She suddenly became a typical woman uncontrollably ranting and firing words but in fairness, still in a way maintaining her composure a bit, never the less, am awarding the point for this round, to Binay.

    It was these statements/comments made by Binay addressed to Roxas that triggered another jolt to viewers of this debate when VP mentioned about the government being guilty of underspending, having a Php 3 B budget for infrastructure development but just resulted to corruption ,“ you are guilty of analysis by paralysis, aminin mo na na nakatanggap ka kay Vitangcol, nagnakaw ka sa FRB…bintang ba? … Disipolo ka ni Goebbels ( Gorabels as Binay said it). It was too direct an accusation for me for a fair comment made by VP, it is more of a personal vendetta made by him in disguise of public interest, this falling under the category of quality of infrastructures and public works on Fair Comment, in this case there must be a strong basis in fact.

    Well, there were so many comments made by the candidates which proved and showed their true colors when and if put in a hot seat, that too is a strong basis for choosing the next in line for the Presidential seat. So one must be critical and keenly observant and not be taken away by their “polipromises”. I wonder what PILIPINAS 2016 DEBATE 3 has in store for the voting public. I cannot believe I still do not have a Presidential candidate to vote for.



  2. Thank you Nina; your post earns the bonus points.
    For those who will post after this: “No copying allowed”. That means: since this exercise will earn the students points, you cannot use the “samples” (debate comments) chosen by Nina (and others who will follow) to illustrate concepts taken up in class. “Walang kopyahan”.
    You may post either here or in
    A solemn Lent to all.

comments are welcome anytime EXCEPT those with more than 12 links or 12 URLs pasted. Tnx)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.