DPP is wise and right on presidential debates
Ample wisdom, political maturity. This is what the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has demonstrated through its decision to recuse itself from participating in a series of debates for running mates and presidential candidates organized ahead of May 21 polls.
First things first. Debates which take place ahead of elections are an important element of democracy when they are conducted by professionals with noble motives. As a matter of fact, such debates offer an important platform for presidential contenders to present their party policies.
In the case of the sitting heads of state the debates offer a platform for them to articulate their future policies while at the same time defending their record.
But while in mature democracies most debates are organized by professionals, the same cannot be said of political debates which take place in some developing countries.
The first of such debates was held last week on Zodiak Broadcasting Corporation. But it left a lot to be desired.
It has been reported before that these debates in the local political scene have been taken hostage by some political parties who bulldoze through the ticketing system to fill up the galleries with their own whose job it is to shout down those they oppose. If this is true, then the behaviour of the audience at the last debate lends credence to the claim.
When It was announced that one running mate would not be available, the audience went into an insulting shoutdown. This raises the question: If this was a neutral audience, what was the purpose of these insults? What was this rowdiness all about? That behaviour indeed raises serious questions on the integrity of the process of organizing the debate.
The big goof during that debate for running mates held on March 7, 2019 in Malawi capital Lilongwe was another example of how unprofessional and chaotic the debates can be.
During the debate, the anchor and even the debaters took time to peddle complete lies and bash the government on a report about the nationwide high resolution airborne geographical survey data.
The lies included serious allegations that government was secretly concealing from the public the outcome of the survey which was conducted with support from the World Bank and the European Union (EU). This was despite the fact that the government launched the report publicly in 2015 and the media covered the launch report extensively.
During the launch Natural Resources Minister Bright Msaka actually emphasized on the fact that the data generated from the survey was readily available and could be accessed by interested individuals and companies.
Why did these participants opt to tell lies about the report during such a debate?
Needless to say the host himself helped the participants in peddling the lie on this when he claimed the report was under wraps by the government. If the host himself was ignorant on this important issue, how would he ably make the debate a battle of honest ideas? If he know the truth but decided to tell a lie, what was the motive?
One can safely conclude that there was hidden motive to use a lie to embarrass the ruling party and the government.
Wise Decision
Thirdly, as stated above, presidential debates including those of their runningmates are organized with the aim of ensuring that they market the policies of the parties, which are most of the time articulated in their manifestos. What this means is that any credible debate needs to be conducted when parties have launched their manifestos.
It is strange that in Malawi, for reasons best known to themselves, media houses have rushed to organize debates even before party manifestos have been launched. It is not surprising that the running mates during the last debate were busy waflling around issues, failing to articulate real policy issues which their parties will pursue. In these kinds of debates participants are supposed to speak their parties policies and not personal opinions.
In the end, that debate led to misleading conclusions. Just to demonstrate that the debate was a complete waste of time, one media house even declared that UTM running mate humorist and joker Michael Usi aka Manganya won the debate. How did he win the debate when he failed to outline tangible policies his parties would follow?
How could he outline party policies when the party does not even have a manifesto, old or new?
No wonder any serious-minded party will avoid being party to the comedy. No wonder DPP has made a stand to avoid participating in such political comedies.
There is one beauty with democracy. Parties and candidates are free to make choices that can assist them achieve their objectives. After all, participating in debate is a voluntary decision, hence no one can fault DPP for deciding to use its own means of marketing its policies.
Criticisms
Even in mature democracies, there are those who have reservations with Presidential debates. For example, in their joint report titled: “Presidential debates and their effects: Research roundup”, Denise-Marie Ordway and John Wihbey, argued that whilst the “news media often anticipate televised presidential debates as a national event of great importance…… political scientists have noted that, in contrast to the party conventions, the general election debates do not typically have dramatic effects on voters.”
Other researchers Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Dean of the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania and David S. Birdsell have also their own observations about such debates.
Quoting the two researchers, one observer hinted: “Debates suffer from compression. Over the course of 90-120 minutes, candidates are expected to answer questions on more than a dozen different topics. This forces them to answer in anywhere from 30 seconds to 2 minutes. This is not conducive to providing anything but superficial, “soundbite” answers to the various questions,” they observe in one of their books.
“While debates might help citizens get a glimpse of a candidate’s communication skills, the debates fail to elicit or provide a means of evaluating some of the skills central to conduct in office including an ability to ask significant questions, a talent for securing sound advice, a disposition to act judiciously, and a capacity to compromise without violating conscience or basic social principles”
The capstone observation being: Debates “reward some behaviors undesirable in a president.” These include a willingness to offer solutions instantaneously, an ability to simplify complex problems … to make distinctions where only shades of difference exist and encourage simplifications that credit neither the candidates nor the audience”
Taking all these factors into consideration, DPP is right first of all to focus on working on its manifesto instead of rushing for debates where even the presenter displays his witlessness on common knowledge. After finalizing its manifesto, the party will find its own means of marketing its policies instead of just being bull-dozed into a game of political comedy.
Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :
Abale munthu akuthawa maola a wiri a debate. Ndiye akuti mumupatse zaka zisanu zoti ayendetse dziko. Funso: Akwanitsa?
If you cant handle a debate, let alone running a country. Mwatopa, kapumeni. Nthawi ya retirement baba.
mr peter manda where did you learn your journalism . you are a very bad reporter i have never seen in my life. you are just a DPP sympathiser. fotsekiiiiiii
How long can an 81 year old person Stand in one place? 2hrs ,1 hr,3hrs? Prevention is better than Cure.Titovomereza kuti enawa atokula.
point taken and you have discussed most important arguments only that you are DPP centred person. DPP as a major and a leading party has its own old manifestos which was used to convince malawians in 2014. so the questions could be; why it failed to pronounce its successes during the debate and why it could just come on the platform and present how it will polish up its failures? chimulirenji as a running of APM knows the imperatives of the party why he failed to emerge and pronounce the aims before the launch their manifestos? ukamava kulowa muchipani kutsata ndalama zokha ndkumeneku alibe cholinga chenchen chothandza amalawi
I support the idea of Manifestos first before the debate. We all know that Mwenifumbo and Chihana are from Aford, typically a party of notherners who are proponents of the federal systems. I am quite surprised that Chihana is on team Chilima whose running mate, Dr. Usi yesterday was against federation and then Mwenefumbo was for it, which in my opinion is not UDF’s stand. Are we saying Chihana is now in support of the Unitary system of govt as it currently is? Would we say these policies are from the parties the running mates are representing or personal opinions meant to outshine each other? No wonder Vice Presidents don’t take time to cross the Igwe’s path and it is seen that they are being sidelined but the opposite may be true………they have all fallen victims as they were trying to outsmart the Boss. Period.
Federation should be implemented in our country to allocate the resources eqaully to its people in three regions to avoid biasness when it comes to distribution of resouces. Kenya is doing well in terms of development because people here adopted the federation system of government which to me is better off .
You are quite right because there no point to boo the absence of Chimulirenji. And my simple advice would be no more clapping hands, praises should be made to any participant after making his/her point this would ensure neutrality of the debate so that at end of business nobody among them should come out with head high. Emulate a good example of MEC this year during presentation of nomination papers they had treated each candidate equally with more praises including a present. Thats the way to go. Mind debate does not vote rather it is the eletrorates who cast votes so parties should not relent in selling their policies.
This is a bad article. It’s like I am reading Malawi voice.
DPP has a manifesto just that it has not been officially launched yet. Please try attending some of their campaign rallies
A chain of nyusensi is what you’ve written here, the fact that you have called Michael Usi a Joker strips you all credibility, it’s a shame a grown man like yourself don’t the difference between a Character and a Man, Your DPP runningmate, what’s his trade kodi aside besides politics? probably he’s a nobody outside politics, so think before pointing fingers. You have shown that you’re pro DPP, your article is not balanced at all.
This is a planned article, written by DPP with cadets waiting to comments.
The current government has a record to highlight and going forward (if given the electoral mandate) build and articulate what could be better. That is a huge advantage. Participating in the debates has its own advantages in that it shows:
1. Your’re in control of the problems as perceived by the nation.
2. You are able to articulate policy by providing what you believe is the best solution to the problems at hand.
3. You are serious and prepared to govern.
4.You are able to engage the nation – an opportunity for the nation to listen to you and your party policies
5. You are relatable
6. You can be trusted to respond to issues affecting the nation
7. The nation needs to know more about its leaders
8.These debates not only serve one purpose, the also provide a space for which we can gauge our level of democratic maturity in tackling issues affecting the nation.
9. A space for would be voters to make an informed decision in casting their ballots (let alone we risk continuing voting along tribal inclinations)
10. Mitigate voter apathy
I admire the time and the ability you had to organise these writing but the arguments. Issues are mixed here, maliciously so. The article is written as if DiPhiPhi had the very same reasoning when it withdrew from the debate, NEH! Nothing close to that or Chimulirenji could have spelt out these issues as among his reason for not honouring his confirmation to participate. Secondly, ZBS repeatedly requested pple who attended the debate not to shout. It is unfair, insincere and cruelty to accuse the organisers for the savagery behaviour of the participants whose attendance ZBS had no much control. 3rdly, your article implies that Malawi, as a developing country cannot have professionals to impartially organize these debates. This perception is shameful. If ZBS and MISA Malawi are too unprofessional to warrant DiPhiPhi’s participation in the debates, as a stakeholder, why not involve and/or negotiate for an involvement of any professional body in the organization of the debates? On parties having no manifestos to warrant them to be debating, wena what is it then DiPhiPhi has been telling us all along in these whistle stops and rallies it has been conducting? The point is, parties, while still preparing for manifestos know what they stand for. And lastly, that debates do not have much influence on voters i.e. that they are useless and hence waste time should not be a reason for DiPhiPhi alone not to participate. It should be rather a national call to do away for the whole thing but if we are to subject stuff through such lens, how many events will survive?
It is now reasonable to expect the organizers and the moderator of that debate to answer the charges leveled above. Now, they have no choice to defend themselves; and that is how democracy works.
It is their opportunity to explain their motives and modus operandi, even beyond the issues that have been brought up.
They can respond via a column, right here.
Crap! Do not waste people’s time again.
Nice research, i didn’t expect Nyasatimes to write a balanced article like this one. Viewing things from certain angle. Well articulate! Even nonpartisan is able to read it without being offended. It reminds me school writing, thank you!
I cannot agree with you more. Just listened today’s debate. One could easily tell certain political parties brought their followers to frustrate others. And there evidence of immaturity from the crowd and some candidates. DPP was right to pull out. WASTE OF TIME…….. Poor on time keeping and poor on follow up questions. Frank was given too much time than others….and through his articulate the presenters were reduced to being a spectator.
I have never read rubbish at this page like this one before. This guy has a big job to defend DPP. Ngati wapatsidwa ndalama ndiye kuti uku kudyera kulimba….
Wise words, An analysis lacking in Malawi politics at the moment. Most comments and articles are written out of hate, anger, jealousy, ignorance or partisan attitude. Well done writer.
I can see the writer here trying to debate outside the BICC, if you were there you could have said all these in the presents of those whom you think talked ills of the DPP
Well articulated. Palibenso zoonjezera apa
This is true. Ife tinali komweko koma mmmmm enawo anachita bwino kusakhalako chifukwa onse poyankha funso malo moti angoyankha funso amayamba kunyoza kaye boma kenako aziyankha funso ena amkangozingulira mkunyoza mpaka nthawi yawo kutha. So dpp anapangadi chiganizo chabwino.
Mr. Gwaza and Mr. CEO know body minds your frustration upon reading this article!
Very well written and very good assessment
This article will go above of most Malawians who are low IQ anyway. The decision by the DPP shows maturity, they have made a right move. The organisers are political hacks who have the whole thing rigged.
Defending the indefensible. Polani moto Mr manda. Of coz this is a fake name. All the same DPP ‘s reservation with debates has more to do with speech and language problem between mutharika and chimulirenji. Ndife anthu odzindikira Bambo manda mwamva. Vuto lake la anyamata inu mumaona ngati Malawians are as gullible as you are.
Olembayu ndiye Mbuzi inanso ngati Adzonzi ndi anzawowo…. Plaibepo chanzeru mwalembapo apa mwatitayitsa nthawi yathu kuwerenga nfundo zopusazi… Chickened Out is Chickened Out basi….Mfundo alibe zowauza wanthu…period!
Complete rubbish. Whether they attend or not the writing is still on the wall
Why have I wasted my time reading this nonsense. I will never recover my 3 minutes i have spent reading this useless article in my life.
Koma debate organized by mbc a dpp akanapezekako
A Peter Manda mbuzi yachabe chabe ma cadets. Achimulirenji amaziwa kuti English yikawavuta