Should India have the US-style Presidential Debate before elections?

A Presidential Debate is one in which the two candidates running for President would be participating in a debate, mostly to attract more voters.

Remember the famous face-off between the present President of the United States, Donald Trump, and his opposition Hillary Clinton? That’s an example of it.

It is overseen by the Commission on Presidential Debates to ensure the quality of debates.

 

 

With the general elections coming up in India in 2019, we wonder whether are not if such a style of debate would be fruitful.

Here are the pros and cons to think the matter through:

Pro: Candidates speaking without being polished by their highly trained PR agents, what is more, raw and real than this? Whenever we see the candidates speaking in the rallies, they are well versed in their pre-rehearsed speeches but this opens up an option for the voters to see them in their true lights. They would have to react according to what is put forward to them and how calm their temperament is could be judged accordingly.

Con: There are only two parties in the United States, the Democratic and the Republican, and so organizing this kind of a debate is easier for them. In India, however, there are multiple political parties and it would be cumbersome to try and accommodate a viable debate amongst all of them.

 

Pro: In the age of social media, the candidates would get far more coverage and responses from people directly. Though the speeches made at specific areas too have a large audience, it does not answer questions that are pertinent to urban people like gender equality, climate change and so on. The audience is rural and perhaps, that is why they are targeted and brought from villages in buses to influence them and generate enthusiasm. The current methods do not allow addressing all of the population.

Con: India does not have a regulating body for debates. It would not be possible to ensure a quality of debate for the common mass or even the various classes of the population. It would result on reliance on the media houses for the common masses to figure out which party is more of their liking or not, and that would make the whole concept very biased instead of the actual intention to have an unbiased body to help people.

 

 

Pro: Arguments stemming on specific allegations by the opposition would open the eyes of the public about what exactly the candidate is going to do about things that have been neglected in the past. The rallies are a sugar-coated version of what everyone wants to hear and not what they are hiding/not saying deliberately to avoid controversy. The pressure would bring to focus the pertinent points. The fumbling and stumbles, or the firm truth and boldness could give them many brownie points accordingly.

Con: The candidates here are chosen by the party without a fair system of voting on those interested to run for Prime Minister from within the party. This system is known as the primaries in the United States where in both the Democrat and Republican houses the candidates are chosen carefully with debates amongst those who are running for the post of the President, followed by consequential voting. In India, the chosen representatives are not selected in this manner.

 

 

A journalist of The Hindustan Times offered a different solution that grasps the best of both worlds with a suggestion of having a series of debates by the senior leader of the political parties so as to put forward their thoughts and opinions on various issues. A single debate, unlike the US-style, would not be sufficient in this country.

On the contrary, a series of such debates would ensure that it is not just the promise of freebies by the politicians to the people to ensure voters on their side but more issues to be delved into with present-day relevance and not just the usual voter-gaining strategies. 

 

Which would you prefer?