One of the issues that have been eliciting diverse discussions in the last few days is the boycott of the presidential debate by the two main aspirants in the race to the highest office in the land. To be sincere, next month’s general election is likely to be the most keenly-contested in the annals of the nation and is mainly going to be between the two most popular political parties. It is because of the dominance and deciding factor of these big parties such that there is too much hues and cries that the people were unable to hear from the duo during the organised debate. Ordinarily, such a platform would have afforded the contestants as well as the electorate an opportunity to have a clearer picture of what is to come and who has what it takes to lead the nation.
No doubt, the performance of the other three presidential contestants that participated was impressive, to say the least, going by the verdict of our people. It shows that the trio was well prepared for the outing and had a grasp of what it takes to lead, if any of them ever make it to the desired office. Not only that, their command of language and presentation skills indicate that the exalted office could be manned by sound technocrats that are poised to offer quality service to their fatherland. But for the two major contestants, participating in the presidential debate does not really matter. For them, the dynamics of politics in our country is peculiar and so debating may not be necessary afterall.
On why the big men did not participate, the spokesperson of one of them had disclosed that his principal could not attend because the event clashed with other crucial official engagements while the other party explained that he backed out because his main challenger was not present at the occasion and alluded that, ‘you cannot shave a man’s head in his absence’. The body language of our top politicians simply suggests that electoral victory is determined by how deep one’s pockets is, who you know and how to get things done within the available means. A chair of one of the parties even boasted that any member of the opposition party that had a case to answer but choses to join his party would get the ‘sins’ and be given a discharge certificate.Godfatherism, thuggery, violence and rigging have always be a common feature of our political system in this country.
Partaking in debate is certainly not one of the viable options. Let’s even ask ourselves this question: in almost 20 years of our democratic experience, how many times have politicians been elected into offices on the basis of their party manifestos, programmes or for outstanding performance during debates or town hall meetings? Infact, one of the stalwarts was so sure of victory that he had declared that his party would win within three hours of commencing voting. The party stalwart, who is also a former governor, claimed that his state would be first to hit the success mark. According to him, the people of the state had already decided who they would be voting for, insisting that there is really no battle ground in the state, saying that he can confidently confirm that his state would be the first that would win the race within three hours of voting. What do we see today? It is the common man that participates in the electoral process and not the elite. How many of our elites do come out to cast their vote? Rather, what happens is that on the voting dates, our elites are busy sleeping, reading newspapers or watching the television. On the other hand, those who would mobilise their support for the top contestants are those that may not have watched any debate, hence, are not influenced by the contestants’ performance.
The fear that all may not be well caused a former president to raise an alarm that dangers lies ahead. According to him, the electoral management body may not be able to independently supervise the conduct of a free, fair and credible exercise due to the impartiality of the umpire and that to be forewarned is to be forearmed. What is equally annoying is the fact that many of our youths and young persons that should decide who wins the race by virtue of their numbers and population when it comes to registered voters becoming useful instruments in the hands of politicians.
Who cares about any presidential debate? Which debate? Rather, what the people need is money, not big grammar. Period! Rather than wasting time on any speech jamboree, they’ll rather focus their attention to the electoral field by trading and deploying available resources to achieve electoral victory since there is no job and meaningful source of living. That is the problem. It is when we are able to address such basic societal problems that we can have the desired impact expected of any debate. That is the bitter truth. It’s only time that would really tell.
