Debates and democracy

The public debate to prove one’s candidature to a posting under contest is more popular among democracies, specifically in the US where the presidents go live debating on politics.

The practices might be of less priority for other country whose politicians rather opt public debates at the public masses organized by concerned parties as part of their public campaigns to gain more votes.

One good reason for the leaders from other countries not going live debates at the media is because either people are less conscious of the importance of public debates or the leaders are shy to appear at public forms for debates.

The Bhutanese regime is trying to copy this for a show case of democracy. The regime-controlled Bhutan Broadcasting Service Corporation and the Election Commission tied a note to begin this performance.

Yet, the systems chosen are quite different. While in the US, the presidents on two chairs at opposite sits make statements over the questions asked or else overrule the other candidate with his or her supremacy on certain subjects and the policy that he or she would formulate once elected. The people can participate or mail questions to the TV stations to be asked to the presidents.

In Bhutan, it is not that. According to election commission, people are not allowed to attend the function. Nor are their questions will be taken. The whole debate will be completed in a locked room, where only the contestants of the National Assembly will participate.

Each member will get five minutes to make statement. The rest will raise questions. And the speaker will get again five minutes to respond.

48 candidates from 15 dzongkhags are contesting the first elections this December end. Five districts will remain vacant until January.

The questions come in: can a candidate respond 47 candidates in five minutes? Or what plans can a candidate explain in five minutes?

There are several questions BBS and the ECB should answer their sincerity or logic to democratic debates. To be realistic, the candidates must answer people’s questions not that of other candidates.

There could be debates on the national issues but in democracies where power is shared to the lower authority, people being empowered, regional and local issues must get into priority. The public participation is essential to raise the local issues. A candidate from Gasa cannot question a candidate from Samdupr Jongkhar or one from Samtse to one from Thimphu. Because issues are different; subject matters are different, priorities are different.

In southern districts, the people face ULFA threats, in Gasa, people face Chinese intrusion. These are two diverse issues which are impossible to be debated among the NC candidates.

Unless public participation are guaranteed and the debate series are pre-recorded and edited with selective footage to suit the interest of the rulers, the debates will be fallacies for democracies. Debate for the sake of debate and democracy for the sake of democracy without incorporating the principles in practice will be counter-productive for the rulers.