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:
