|
Asupposedly top-notch election lawyer, one who knows by heart that
the 2010 president should come from the best and the brightest, was
the source of a recent no-brainer: a declaration that presidential
debates are unconstitutional and presidential candidates have the
option of skipping these.
The general reaction to the no-brainer was
mostly shock and disbelief. Does the guy know what he is talking
about? Whatever happened to the sense that mediocrity should no
longer be rewarded in politics? Whatever happened to the resolve
that we have to stop, once and for all and with every functioning
fiber in our body, the presidency of the dumb?
Is this lawyer even aware that the world right
now is high on an anti-dumb movement? Does he realize that we are in
a Knowledge Society? I thought we are all striving to move into the
age of Great Meritocracy, where talent, not mediocrity, is king. I
thought the country and our people have been scarred (and wizened
enough) by the lessons from an imbecile presidency.
Debates between and among presidential
candidates in the 2010 elections should be held at a level and pace
not seen before. The debates should be marathon sessions with the
candidates forced to answer substantive and tough questions. The
presidential hopefuls should debate till they drop dead from
exercising their cerebellum.
The debate process should be exacting and
grueling enough. To the point that the morons and the dumb would be
forced to raise their hands in surrender and abandon their hopeless
candidacies.
Because every citizen, regardless of IQ, can run
for the presidency, only marathon and tough debates can force the
feeble minds to tire, self-destruct and get out of the race before
they pee on their pants due to mental torture and exhaustion. We
cannot force the morons out of the race using guns and physical
force. We cannot set minimum educational qualifications. That is the
unconstitutional thing to do. But we can test their brainpower and
leadership mettle via marathon debates and that is what we ought to
do.
Let the dumb wilt on the taxing, draining
demands of presidential debates.
It is true that debating and articulation skills
do not necessary translate into great leadership. We are reminded of
Saint Paul, the greatest of the Catholic apostles, whose dry and
flat oratory can put listeners to sleep. But Paul had his writings:
soaring, lofty, inspirational. Whatever he lacked in oratorical
skills, he made up for superb writing.
How will the grueling and marathon debates help
the voters decide and help them make the right decision?
The presidential debates will allow people to
peek into the mindset of the candidates, their basic beliefs, their
core principles, their greatest and fondest dream for the country
and our people.
Those without plans and without dreams for the
country (that have to be articulated in fine, cogent and coherent
sentences) would be easily identified and exposed as charlatans and
pretenders.
Mind you, the debates—grueling and
tough—will no longer allow generalities. There should be a wonkish
element to the debates, such as economic plans with accompanying
mathematical equations.
What should be the priority of the national
budget? Can you give economic projections? Will you rework existing
economic agreements and pacts with other countries? Based on your
development plans, what would be our growth for the medium term?
Which between the two is your ideal: pump
priming or reining in the deficit? What should be the scope of
government’s intervention in business? Should it be unabashed
free-market ideals or a regime of interference and regulation?
These things have to be answered. These are not
simply economic questions. They are a test of competence and
leadership.
Candidates, this is imperative, have to be asked
on their views on technology, on broadband and bandwidth.
Words are also important. Presidents, this is a
basic requirement, should neither mangle nor torture English, by
which the globe converses, and should be able to convey his or her
thoughts in lofty, even soaring, Pilipino.
Polyglots and polymaths are most welcome in the
presidential race.
Eruptions and its variations should be viewed as
Plain-speak, the serial killing and torturing of the English
language.
If we have to declare some things as
unconstitutional, these are incoherent thought, tortured syntax and
incomplete sentences. And words that lead to nowhere.
mvrong@yahoo.com
|
