US-style Presidential debate: Do we really need one?

by Mano Ratwatte

Recently there have been a clamour for direct Presidential debates in Sri Lanka election, because both candidates are new and no one is an incumbent President.

A lot of people have mistakenly cited the American model including the brilliant orator foreign minister Mr. Bandaranaike who follows in his father Silver Tongue of Asia traditions of oratory.

Sadly, the American model is entirely the wrong model to follow if the serious contenders want to debate real issues such as terrorism, appeasement and economic issues that Sri Lankan citizens are worried about.

It is time an American uses this opportunity to educate Sri Lankans who are ignorant on how things are done here with presidential debates.

Why you may ask? In the US, these debates do no justice to what we have seen in South Asia. They consist of pre arranged rules and regulations between the organisers, handlers and advertisers, and marketeers of the two candidates beforehand; what can be asked and what should not be asked is decided beforehand.

These rules include how a candidate should look in front of the unforgiving TV cameras, how tall or short each podium should be so that no one looks too short or what their suits and ties should look like to what their make up levels are. Content is secondary to image and any really serious questions that encourage contentious debate.

A moderator poses questions from a set of questions and no one really asks each other questions or challenges them. It is boring and uninformative and designed to let Americans believe that theirs is indeed the only true democracy.

These debates are an insult to anyone who has witnessed Parliamentary debating and oratory of the skill levels displayed by my late uncle SWRD Bandaranaike, Colvin R De Silva, Vivienne Goonewardena, Anura Bandaranaike, President R. Premadasa, N.M. Perera, and Lalith Athulathmudali for example; or my own Aunt Mrs. Bandaranaike, who had her own baritone voice and dry cutting style reminiscent more of a school Principal. Her speech chastising the Parliamentary conduct of Govt. and opposition MPS was brilliant and far superior to anything uttered by Bush or Kerry in 2004.

The TV mesmerized audience is not interested in politics; its obsession is football, baseball, basketball (depending on the season) and wrestling and Nascar racing and soap operas. Most Americans don't have the passion that the average poor Sri Lankan who sits on the bench at the corner tea boutique has for debating politics, economic issues and even terrorism. America's papers including the so called liberal media just caved in pathetically before Bush went to war in Iraq. They were so afraid that they did not ask the tough questions or encourage Americans to debate facts.

Americans were lied to, believing Iraq was behind the attacks because most cannot read a map and place Iraq or Iran on the map because they don't care. They were brainwashed brilliantly because the media failed in its job to debate issues. That has not happened in Sri Lanka.

Nowadays they even use the ubiquitous cellphone in remote areas of Sri Lanka to do just that: argue politics. But sadly, in the US of America, most people don't have a clue who their Secretary of State is, or who the Chief Justice is. Most people shy away from political discussion at work or at school in contrast to South Asia.

During election time they are bombarded with partisan destructive commercials that don't last longer than a minute and are intended to be deceptive and spread disinformation about the other side. People believe sound bites.

In the debates, both candidates are asked a series of questions by moderators; they are given prepared answers they have rehearsed with media handlers. Then each person is given a 30 second to one minute slot to as rebuttal time.

There is never a series of debates like the type we are used to. Personally I feel I had more exposure to Oxford style debates at Royal and in India than in my 18 years (last five of them being a loyal American who took an oath to defend its Constitution) here in the US. It is definitely not the correct format to emulate.

The candidates memorise lines, they are never impromptu and they are handled. Bush for instance set the rules and regulations for debating Kerry because he was the incumbent. There has not been any brilliant oratory of the kind Sri Lanka likes to emulate. No Erskine, No Premadasa and no Anura Bandaranaike as he did so against a giant government of 130-8 in the 1977 Parliament.

Sri Lanka should not cite America as the example of free speech or free media. It is better off looking at India which indeed has a vibrant fiercely independent media which dared to question its leaders during war. That is considered unpatriotic in the US these days because rabid rightwing neo-conservatives want blind unquestioning obedience about the war in Iraq.

Let Ranil and Mahinda stick to the age old traditions of Parliamentary debate we grew up with and have a real debate.

In this case, my cousin Minister Anura Bandaranaike is wrong.

The US is not the model to follow for Presidential debates here. In fact Sri Lanka can teach Americans a lot more about terrorism, its global context and ways to permanently tackle it because the US is still learning on the job.