“When someone wished for fire and brimstone than sobriety”

“When someone wished for fire and brimstone than sobriety”

(Thoughts on the recent Presidential and Senatorial debates)

For sure someone prefers the "no holds barred" debate. For to be honest, there are people who would have preferred having a no holds barred debate all after seeing both the recent presidential and senatorial forums. 

For be it in Quiboloy's Channel to that of Cabangon Chua's, people waited for known figures to voice out their programs, opinions, and even educated heckles, all enough to translate into votes- for political debates, especially those held during election season, "theoretically" make sure that candidates provide voters information on their platforms and plans should they be elected, as well as acting as a "level playing field" towards a fair, informed electorate over the guise of transparency.

But reality sounds more like otherwise. For in a time when people used hear debates from Eli Soriano to that of Rap Battles in BSide, these events are nothing but entertainment. Some may compare it to concerts showcasing their "talent" in making the audience admiring them and translate into votes, be it for president, senator, or any other elected position to be; vary in their structure, operations, and duration. But what remains constant, however, are three factors: audience, spectacle, and format. 

And since people comparing it to concerts, then this means a lot of noise whether to support or oppose a candidate. These folks, whether all "eager for a change" or just "for the sake of fun" raise their banners as they support any of those candidates and to jeer the other, or in the case of Professor Carlos grilling the candidates, admiring the panelist's statements. People did appreciate that Senatoriable Espiritu after telling Gadon "not to be rude" as the latter trying to interrupt him about human rights; or Presidentiable Leody de Guzman trying to refute Montemayor's apologia for capitalism in the issue involving the need for higher wages. While on the other hand, De Guzman himself, while in the "belly of the beast", had to face jeers from the right-wing supporters of Marcos/Duterte as his explanation about the insurgency runs contrary to the narrative of the state.

However, things get worry that as De Guzman himself, a left-winger, had to face those taunts from the right-wing figures like Badoy-Partosa and others in that "belly of the beast"; for the fact that it was sponsored and shown in a channel known for right-wing propaganda, this also meant churning anti-opposition sentiment be it against the left or against the liberals. Of course, mainstream opposition candidates would chose not to join the forum citing controversies brought by Quiboloy himself, but this doesn’t matter for De Guzman and others even by pretending there was some impartiality in that forum. But people saw how biased the forum was especially after De Guzman’s statement “calling for the need to address the social roots of rebellion” was responded by cringy responses like those from Badoy-Partosa and her team of anticommunists defending their task force and their actions. Quiboloy’s right wing cheerleaders even threatened Leody’s supporters, such as Walden Bello who was almost removed from the venue for expressing his angst. But this right-wing attempt to belittle didn’t succeed as those against Marcos especially that of Robredo's camp took the side of De Guzman for being consistent in against the dictator especially within the “belly of the beast” that’s Quiboloy’s forum itself. Even on Cabangon-Chua's, whose commentators particularly those synonymous with their support for Duterte would feign impartiality and objectivity while people concerned would find them obvious whom they support with with the questions, responses been done towards the candidates. 

But reality seems clear that the apologists of the order would "try their best" to defend their idol's legacy, of asserting the need to continuity, and to belittle the other side of the fence enough to make voters support their chosen candidate. They would feign impartiality and objectivity as shown in those forums as moderators, as organisers, but the fact that they supported the order and someone strongly disagrees with it then what kind of forum is that? Is it really a venue of discourse? Or another way to make shit in support of their idol? Pardon for the thought but as these apologists of the order, or even so-called "political hobbyists" tend to make use of every medium as much as possible in an attempt to rally in support of the order pretending they're impartial or objective. But expect biases shown implicitly, if not hidden underneath layers of irony, whataboutism, and the likes. 

Perhaps, right was Mr. Montemayor that the event wasn't a debate, let alone a forum showcasing ideas and platforms- for the fact that people wanted a debate in a literal sense, then frankly speaking, they really prefer a no holds barred kind of "debate" where idea and expression are intertwined. People wished to hear about programs and platforms, so is to hear them facing the important matters of the day and how are they passionately expressing for or against it out of their principles.