Still on that debate
Entertaining was how one opinion writer described that presidential debate last Sunday. He was right. With the candidates waxing confrontational and hitting each other with barbed insults the whole scenario could compete with Eat Bulaga in entertainment value.
Yet not many felt amused, the serious minded especially. For these observers that debate was a big letdown. Here was the country's supposed cream of leaders one of whom would later steer the ship of state through troubled waters - what have they to say about how to do the job? What are their visions for this country and what are their plans to attain these? But nothing of these surfaced in the whole stretch of that affair.
Instead, the candidates behaved like stage gladiators trying to kill each other with words. Character assassination became the rule of the game, and this happening as it did on the very first day of the Holy Week spoke a lot about how unchristian these supposed leaders are. Humility and compassion - are these not the mantra of Christian believers? Civility and respect - are these not the hallmarks of civilized persons?
Much has been said about our being the only Christian country in Asia. But how come we are also the most corrupt? Much has also been said about our being the only democratic country in this part of the world. But how come governance is the monopoly of the moneyed few?
With such unchristian leaders what kind of government is in store for us? One is an alleged real-estate manipulator whose billions are reportedly stashed in local and foreign banks; another is a swashbuckling local leader who has a reputation for extra-judicial salvaging, another is a veteran bureaucrat but whose track record bristles with tentativeness and indecision," still another is a "balikbayan" with a doubtful citizenship whose public service experience has been mediocre.
A debate among presidentiables ought to be educational. It should educate people about national issues and concerns, their implications and possible impact upon society. It should enlighten people about their roles in the search for solution to such problems as massive poverty, rampant corruption, unemployment, criminality, and other challenges this country is presently confronted with. And the role of the debaters should be to spell out what they plan to do once entrusted with the highest position of the land. This, of course, requires specific, not generalizations, concrete illustrations not hazy descriptions.
Moreover, the speaker-candidates ought to go beyond problem solving and aim for visioning. For a leader without a vision is not a leader but a mere manager. Decades from today, what kind of a country he dreams the Philippines to be? Taking cognizance of breakthroughs in science and technology, where would we be in the family of nations in Asia? Will there be a time when every Filipino will have a decent lodging, decent clothing, and decent food? And when disaster strikes, such as another Yolanda or earthquake how would we cope with it? What shall be done to minimize casualties and lessen sufferings? What happened in Leyte during that killer typhoon should have taught us a lesson and right now preventive measures should have been in place. What happened too in Bohol and Cebu when a magnitude 7.2 tremor shook the earth should also be a learning experience for us but more so far would-be presidents.
- Latest
