The first to present his case seems right until another comes and examines him. Making cases as to why a candidate should be hired to take office for a term is often what happens at a political window. But we can only assume that such cases are right, we do not truly know how effective they are until there is a challenge or when it is too late. It is this challenge of ideas, cases, positions, propositions and even character that make democracy tick. The formal setting to present voters with an opportunity to test these cases, positions and propositions is a debate.
On Friday 14th December, 5 vice presidential nominees spoke at the BON/NEDG debates. It was carried live by most local media stations in Nigeria. Make no mistake though, what we saw and listened to were no debates only group interviews. It was a mockery compared to what debates are supposed to be and what obtains elsewhere.
Recent comments before the debate showed that many Nigerians, some of whom yours truly consider influencers have argued against debates. Their argument is that, voters already made up their minds and would not change them regardless of how the debates turn out. Whether this opinion is true or not, we must never come to the day where we accept such thinking to hold sway in Nigeria.
Debates still play an important role in helping undecided voters make up their minds however few they are. Decided voters too, may just have a hard time when confronted with the reality of how poorly thought out a campaign promise is when challenged or exposed at a debate. Debates also provide the widest possible publicity to candidates compared to campaign grounds with unchallenged stump speeches.
What is more, they serve as the opportunity to test the mettle of the candidate and reveal his/her character when faced with a challenge of their ideas. Pre-debate bias on grounds of ethnicity, religion or geo-political zone are the basest intellectual depth to which a man can sink in the 21st century. If those are all it takes to make up ones mind, then, we can all conclude that primordial conditions are the bane of poor judgement. What then is the role of merit, competence, experience or bright ideas if we all just settle for primordial sentiments?
Debates also ensure that there is accountability and transparent leadership, even helping to mitigate against abuse of power. The role of debates cannot be overemphasized. Those seeking public offices must learn the art of communicating their proposed solutions, challenging the weaknesses of their opponents positions and staying calm through it all.
With that out of the way, we must return to the issue at hand, the vice presidential debates of December 14th. The moderator Mr. Amarare asked different questions of the participants starting with the role of the vice president. That was not a debatable question. They all gave bland responses to the tepid question. Perhaps Peter Obi's response was most memorable. He was asked about the possible clash of interests with the president.
Debates are about positions and propositions on certain issues. The debates that held on the 14th were largely not issue based. They were merely a joint interview of 5 leading parties at the forth coming elections. The leading issues going into the 2019 election are: Restructuring, whether or not and how; the economy and job creation; national security, education, health care delivery and infrastructure.
For reference purposes, I will cite the 2008 debate between Senators John McCain and Barak Obama. Prior to the debates, the organizers had announced that they would focus on three critical national issues: the financial crisis, national security and foreign policy. Both men showed plans to address the financial crisis which largely differed from the other. They also took turns at showing weaknesses of each other's plans and how impractical they were. So robust were the understanding of both men of their plans and those of their opponents. The same can be said of the UK Leaders Debate of 2015 where all 7 spoke of their plans and compared them severally against those of their opponents.
Back to the 2008, Obama had quite distinctly from his party's known ideology, proposed tax cuts but for middle and low income families whilst McCain characteristically Republican proposed to cut taxes for rich organizations and billionaires with large employees. Both candidates were familiar with both positions and made cases against opposing plans. We saw none of the kind on Friday the 14th.
Mr. Peter Obi kept presenting facts and referencing China and the BRICS nations. His best line seemed to be: "if you do the right thing." This was neither position nor a policy presentation. Prof. Osinbajo on the other hand tried defend his government's achievements and blame the PDP. He struggled to make new promises. Eventually, fuel subsidies came up and it proved a crucial point for divergent views. Mr Peter Obi insisted that the APC was subsidizing inefficiency, while Prof. Osinbajo whose party had denied the existence of subsidy admitted the policy was in place to protect Nigerians. Mrs Umma Getso called it a scam but provided no policy promise on the practice. Mrs Khadija and Mr Galadima could only denounce it but provided no propositions either.
I wonder if they realized they were there to sell policies not names and party symbols. At debates, candidates show how a certain policy would be beneficial to the electorate should they control government office. That was clearly not happening on Friday the 14th. Where it was done, it was too short on detail or largely unpersuasive.
Another point of divergence was the moment when Mr Peter Obi had said that "fighting corruption was not an economic policy". When the Vice President got his chance he responded that thieves had raided the shop and necessitated the policy. Obi countered that "you do not lock your shop to chase thieves." This drew laughter from the audience that had been severely warned to stay quiet. Prof. Osinbajo quickly responded that the thieves had stolen the shop and must be stopped, also drawing a laugh. The moderator had to tell both men that it was not a PDP vs APC debate.
Mrs Umma Getso and Mr Galadima seemed to defer about 2 or 3 questions to their presidential candidates whilst Mrs Khadija seemed unsure and sometimes wanted to read her notes. Such display of uncertainty, and inarticulate presentation of position was grossly embarrassing. Granted that it was their first times especially for the young women, the same could not be accepted for Mr. Galadima who came fourth in 2015. He was all over the place and could not really articulate either position nor policy. Madam Oby Ezekwesili must have been embarrassed as were thousands who took to social media to disparage Mr Galadima and Mrs Khadija. Mrs. Umma Getso seemed to stop too short, never completing her time or making any real promise except to defer to her presidential candidate. I must add though, that seeing those young women hold their ground on that stage against the men was an inspiring moment for hundreds of thousands possibly millions of girl children in Nigeria that watched. More exposure of this kind is necessary.
Another worrying concern is the claims and dispense of facts by the candidates. Mr. Peter Obi was most eager to throw facts around while Prof Osinbajo too threw some of his. An online newspaper Premium Times did a good job of fact checking the figures brandied by these candidates. Debates are not an opportunity to sell falsehood especially in this day and age of the internet and independent fact checks. It is best that candidates present only what is verifiably correct and shun from manipulating facts to garner votes.
If we must grow this democracy, then the quality of the debates must improve to what is obtainable elsewhere. Parties exist to have their policies or ideals implemented. Personal ambition is secondary. Debates exist to present those ideals / policies to be challenged, validated or denounced. The electorate is then better able to decide what policies/ideals would serve them better for that term.
Another disturbing issue that presented itself before the debates was the exclusion of Mr Omoleye Sowere and Donald Duke (now unable to run on account of a court ruling). There were over 60 candidates running for the position. 40 of them have dropped their ambitions to back Alhaji Atiku Abubakar of the PDP. This leaves at least 20 other candidates or thereabout. I am not exactly sure, but the organizers should have structured the debates to span at least 5 days as we had in the past (2003-2011) to give those other candidates a chance to make an appearance. Perhaps minor debates might have been necessary to build up popularity and qualify candidates for the "big 5". The polls that produced the big 5 is somewhat hasty.
Going forward, it is hoped that the Broadcasters Organization of Nigeria, the Nigeria Electoral Debate Group structure and focus the debate to address the current electoral issues which at this time are: Restructuring, the Economy, National Security, Health and Education. The questions should be one and the same for each candidate. It should be their moment to present a policy proposition or promise on the issue as well as an opportunity to criticize those of another candidate. Debates are not a joke or mere formality, they are crucial to help the electorate make an informed decision.
We are copying our version of democracy from the United States, then we should in principle practice debates the American way. Although theirs is a dominant two party system with the other parties struggling to get national attention. In the UK, which is a proper multi-party reference, debates are equally held leading to the concept of convergence.
On issues where parties have somewhat agreeable positions, it becomes a ground for coalitions. Coalitions are not formed just to wrestle power like the APC did in 2015. Although, the APC became an outright merger, coalitions occur where there are convergences with meetings held to harmonize and reach consensus.
Although 40 parties have adopted the PDP, there still remains at least 20 parties in the race meaning the ballot paper would be quite long and probably confusing for the electorate. Thumb spaces would be small and with the issue of invalid votes still occurring, there is urgent need for presidential candidates to critically study their positions and find grounds of convergence. Politics is not largely about person but about having certain policies implemented. Unfortunately, we are still stuck in the era of the person over the policy or ideology.
Going forward, it is hoped that the NEDG and BON should improve on the joke that was considered a debate. Equally important, it is expected that other groups should organize other debates as many are needed. While the key national issues are on the front burner, there are others that civil society and religious groups need to give greater importance to. I see no reason why NBA, NASFAT, CAN, and the like should not organize a joint debate to address issues of: human rights, social justice, child rights, child marriage and related issues. We also need debates on constitutional reforms, and institutional reforms.
It will be foolhardy to assume that debates are a cure all. While eloquence is not proof of competence, it still is necessary that leadership acquires the skill of communication and eloquence, both of which are needed not just for debates but for implementation of the positions after elections are won and lost.
On Friday 14th December, 5 vice presidential nominees spoke at the BON/NEDG debates. It was carried live by most local media stations in Nigeria. Make no mistake though, what we saw and listened to were no debates only group interviews. It was a mockery compared to what debates are supposed to be and what obtains elsewhere.
Recent comments before the debate showed that many Nigerians, some of whom yours truly consider influencers have argued against debates. Their argument is that, voters already made up their minds and would not change them regardless of how the debates turn out. Whether this opinion is true or not, we must never come to the day where we accept such thinking to hold sway in Nigeria.
Debates still play an important role in helping undecided voters make up their minds however few they are. Decided voters too, may just have a hard time when confronted with the reality of how poorly thought out a campaign promise is when challenged or exposed at a debate. Debates also provide the widest possible publicity to candidates compared to campaign grounds with unchallenged stump speeches.
What is more, they serve as the opportunity to test the mettle of the candidate and reveal his/her character when faced with a challenge of their ideas. Pre-debate bias on grounds of ethnicity, religion or geo-political zone are the basest intellectual depth to which a man can sink in the 21st century. If those are all it takes to make up ones mind, then, we can all conclude that primordial conditions are the bane of poor judgement. What then is the role of merit, competence, experience or bright ideas if we all just settle for primordial sentiments?
Debates also ensure that there is accountability and transparent leadership, even helping to mitigate against abuse of power. The role of debates cannot be overemphasized. Those seeking public offices must learn the art of communicating their proposed solutions, challenging the weaknesses of their opponents positions and staying calm through it all.
With that out of the way, we must return to the issue at hand, the vice presidential debates of December 14th. The moderator Mr. Amarare asked different questions of the participants starting with the role of the vice president. That was not a debatable question. They all gave bland responses to the tepid question. Perhaps Peter Obi's response was most memorable. He was asked about the possible clash of interests with the president.
Debates are about positions and propositions on certain issues. The debates that held on the 14th were largely not issue based. They were merely a joint interview of 5 leading parties at the forth coming elections. The leading issues going into the 2019 election are: Restructuring, whether or not and how; the economy and job creation; national security, education, health care delivery and infrastructure.
For reference purposes, I will cite the 2008 debate between Senators John McCain and Barak Obama. Prior to the debates, the organizers had announced that they would focus on three critical national issues: the financial crisis, national security and foreign policy. Both men showed plans to address the financial crisis which largely differed from the other. They also took turns at showing weaknesses of each other's plans and how impractical they were. So robust were the understanding of both men of their plans and those of their opponents. The same can be said of the UK Leaders Debate of 2015 where all 7 spoke of their plans and compared them severally against those of their opponents.
Back to the 2008, Obama had quite distinctly from his party's known ideology, proposed tax cuts but for middle and low income families whilst McCain characteristically Republican proposed to cut taxes for rich organizations and billionaires with large employees. Both candidates were familiar with both positions and made cases against opposing plans. We saw none of the kind on Friday the 14th.
Mr. Peter Obi kept presenting facts and referencing China and the BRICS nations. His best line seemed to be: "if you do the right thing." This was neither position nor a policy presentation. Prof. Osinbajo on the other hand tried defend his government's achievements and blame the PDP. He struggled to make new promises. Eventually, fuel subsidies came up and it proved a crucial point for divergent views. Mr Peter Obi insisted that the APC was subsidizing inefficiency, while Prof. Osinbajo whose party had denied the existence of subsidy admitted the policy was in place to protect Nigerians. Mrs Umma Getso called it a scam but provided no policy promise on the practice. Mrs Khadija and Mr Galadima could only denounce it but provided no propositions either.
I wonder if they realized they were there to sell policies not names and party symbols. At debates, candidates show how a certain policy would be beneficial to the electorate should they control government office. That was clearly not happening on Friday the 14th. Where it was done, it was too short on detail or largely unpersuasive.
Another point of divergence was the moment when Mr Peter Obi had said that "fighting corruption was not an economic policy". When the Vice President got his chance he responded that thieves had raided the shop and necessitated the policy. Obi countered that "you do not lock your shop to chase thieves." This drew laughter from the audience that had been severely warned to stay quiet. Prof. Osinbajo quickly responded that the thieves had stolen the shop and must be stopped, also drawing a laugh. The moderator had to tell both men that it was not a PDP vs APC debate.
Mrs Umma Getso and Mr Galadima seemed to defer about 2 or 3 questions to their presidential candidates whilst Mrs Khadija seemed unsure and sometimes wanted to read her notes. Such display of uncertainty, and inarticulate presentation of position was grossly embarrassing. Granted that it was their first times especially for the young women, the same could not be accepted for Mr. Galadima who came fourth in 2015. He was all over the place and could not really articulate either position nor policy. Madam Oby Ezekwesili must have been embarrassed as were thousands who took to social media to disparage Mr Galadima and Mrs Khadija. Mrs. Umma Getso seemed to stop too short, never completing her time or making any real promise except to defer to her presidential candidate. I must add though, that seeing those young women hold their ground on that stage against the men was an inspiring moment for hundreds of thousands possibly millions of girl children in Nigeria that watched. More exposure of this kind is necessary.
Another worrying concern is the claims and dispense of facts by the candidates. Mr. Peter Obi was most eager to throw facts around while Prof Osinbajo too threw some of his. An online newspaper Premium Times did a good job of fact checking the figures brandied by these candidates. Debates are not an opportunity to sell falsehood especially in this day and age of the internet and independent fact checks. It is best that candidates present only what is verifiably correct and shun from manipulating facts to garner votes.
If we must grow this democracy, then the quality of the debates must improve to what is obtainable elsewhere. Parties exist to have their policies or ideals implemented. Personal ambition is secondary. Debates exist to present those ideals / policies to be challenged, validated or denounced. The electorate is then better able to decide what policies/ideals would serve them better for that term.
Another disturbing issue that presented itself before the debates was the exclusion of Mr Omoleye Sowere and Donald Duke (now unable to run on account of a court ruling). There were over 60 candidates running for the position. 40 of them have dropped their ambitions to back Alhaji Atiku Abubakar of the PDP. This leaves at least 20 other candidates or thereabout. I am not exactly sure, but the organizers should have structured the debates to span at least 5 days as we had in the past (2003-2011) to give those other candidates a chance to make an appearance. Perhaps minor debates might have been necessary to build up popularity and qualify candidates for the "big 5". The polls that produced the big 5 is somewhat hasty.
Going forward, it is hoped that the Broadcasters Organization of Nigeria, the Nigeria Electoral Debate Group structure and focus the debate to address the current electoral issues which at this time are: Restructuring, the Economy, National Security, Health and Education. The questions should be one and the same for each candidate. It should be their moment to present a policy proposition or promise on the issue as well as an opportunity to criticize those of another candidate. Debates are not a joke or mere formality, they are crucial to help the electorate make an informed decision.
We are copying our version of democracy from the United States, then we should in principle practice debates the American way. Although theirs is a dominant two party system with the other parties struggling to get national attention. In the UK, which is a proper multi-party reference, debates are equally held leading to the concept of convergence.
On issues where parties have somewhat agreeable positions, it becomes a ground for coalitions. Coalitions are not formed just to wrestle power like the APC did in 2015. Although, the APC became an outright merger, coalitions occur where there are convergences with meetings held to harmonize and reach consensus.
Although 40 parties have adopted the PDP, there still remains at least 20 parties in the race meaning the ballot paper would be quite long and probably confusing for the electorate. Thumb spaces would be small and with the issue of invalid votes still occurring, there is urgent need for presidential candidates to critically study their positions and find grounds of convergence. Politics is not largely about person but about having certain policies implemented. Unfortunately, we are still stuck in the era of the person over the policy or ideology.
Going forward, it is hoped that the NEDG and BON should improve on the joke that was considered a debate. Equally important, it is expected that other groups should organize other debates as many are needed. While the key national issues are on the front burner, there are others that civil society and religious groups need to give greater importance to. I see no reason why NBA, NASFAT, CAN, and the like should not organize a joint debate to address issues of: human rights, social justice, child rights, child marriage and related issues. We also need debates on constitutional reforms, and institutional reforms.
It will be foolhardy to assume that debates are a cure all. While eloquence is not proof of competence, it still is necessary that leadership acquires the skill of communication and eloquence, both of which are needed not just for debates but for implementation of the positions after elections are won and lost.
Comments
nike shox
off white hoodie
curry 7 sour patch
nike air max
michael kors handbags
lebron shoes
lebron 16
goyard
balenciaga