Exchange of ideas.

(From Philippine Daily Inquirer)

Byline: Manuel L. Quezon III

SHOULD the leading presidential contenders hold a debate? I think not. The idea of putting all the presidential candidates in a room, and having them debate each other is an idea borrowed from the Americans, and even in the United States, the practice is a fairly new one, dating to the 1960s. In the first place, the American style of presidential debate is more of a panel discussion than a real debate: a proper and enlightening, debate requires one side to adhere to a positive proposition, and the other side to concentrate on demolishing that proposition. Any other format is a glorified interview.

If, for example, a debate between President Macapagal-Arroyo and KNP candidate Fernando Poe Jr. on the question of "the Philippines requires a Strong Republic," then I would be all for it. Such a debate would have a positive proposition-the administration's plan of governance based on a concrete plan-which would require Poe to argue that the idea of a Strong Republic is flawed, or irrelevant, or its objectives better served by his own plan, say, a plan for a "New Morning for the Republic" (much as it might sound like the need for a "New Society"). A debate of this nature would have as its starting point a common frame of reference, which is necessary if the public is to be enlightened as to the real differences between the candidates.

But considering that such a debate is unlikely to be held, it seems to me a waste of time for the candidates-and the electorate-to be subjected to a panel discussion disguised as a debate. What should be held, instead, are a series of presentations, or speeches, before a body representative of the electorate, in which the candidates could individually expound on their platforms. This is more in keeping with our political traditions and practices.

My favorite example dates back to the elections of 1953, when former Defense Secretary Ramon Magsaysay ran against President Elpidio Quirino. The candidates were invited to address the students of the University of the East. In my upcoming sequel to "Twenty Speeches that Moved a Nation," I am including Magsaysay's and Quirino's speeches because they clearly show the differences between the two candidates. Even though they didn't engage in a face-to-face debate, the candidates' speeches were anchored on Quirino presenting his vision of government, and Magsaysay presenting one that responded to what he felt were the weaknesses of his opponent. Anyone who wants to understand either Quirino or Magsaysay need only read the speeches.

President Quirino presented a valedictory for his generation, a passionate defense of the efforts to gain independence peacefully from the Americans, and a condemnation of those he ...