Zimbabwe's televised Presidential Debate
09 Jul 2013 at 10:32hrs | Views
We have seen in other countries, the Presidential Debates are held every presidential term and are vital for the citizens to vote for the next President of their choice.
Should Zimbabwe's Presidential candidates engage in a Presidential Debate like what we saw in America or Kenya. This reminds me of a programme that was being moderated by Mutumwa Mawere sometime ago.
Who could be the unbiased moderator?
Who could emerge the winner?
In what format can this be done?
Is it a good idea?
FIVE Presidential candidates
Mukwazhe Munodei Kisinoti (ZDP)
Ncube Welshman (MDC)
Mugabe Robert Gabriel (Zanu-PF)
Dabengwa Dumiso (ZAPU)
Tsvangirai Morgan (MDC-T)
A summary of several of their arguments for a Presidential Debate.
First and foremost, presidential debates are educational. In an era when many voters are not given ample time to start paying attention to the campaign, debates afford candidates the opportunity to provide informative, concise summaries of their major policy positions and viewpoints in a single evening. Research has shown that voters learn from debates. After watching a single debate, viewers are more accurately able to describe the platforms of the candidates and this often prompts them to seek out additional information about the candidates.
Modern presidential debates also provide one of the few indicators as to how the candidates might respond under pressure. Whereas the vast majority of modern campaign events are scripted and edited affairs, debates require candidates to be able to think on their feet and be able to respond to unanticipated events. In this sense, they serve as national "job interviews" for the office. If a candidate gets easily flustered trying to answer a simple question in a debate, it suggests that the candidate may not be able to handle the rigors of the pressure and unpredictability of the presidency. In contrast, when candidates are able to keep their cool during high-stakes events like live debates, it conveys confidence that they'll be prepared when the "3:00 a.m. wake-up call" comes.
Debates also force candidates to do what they should be doing anyways if they want to be president: know something and be able to speak intelligently about a wide range of issues. While the questions from moderators are often predictable, they sometimes throw curve balls that reward the candidates who are better prepared and informed to speak on a wide range of topics.
Despite these advantages, academics and commentators alike have criticized presidential debates, especially for how they're covered by the national media. The vast majority of post-debate coverage and spin from the campaigns focuses on the "horse-race" and how a particular phrase or gesture will ultimately affect the candidates' standing in the polls and electoral prospects. Comparatively little coverage focuses on the candidates' substantive answers to issue and policy questions.
Should Zimbabwe's Presidential candidates engage in a Presidential Debate like what we saw in America or Kenya. This reminds me of a programme that was being moderated by Mutumwa Mawere sometime ago.
Who could be the unbiased moderator?
Who could emerge the winner?
In what format can this be done?
Is it a good idea?
FIVE Presidential candidates
Mukwazhe Munodei Kisinoti (ZDP)
Ncube Welshman (MDC)
Mugabe Robert Gabriel (Zanu-PF)
Dabengwa Dumiso (ZAPU)
Tsvangirai Morgan (MDC-T)
A summary of several of their arguments for a Presidential Debate.
First and foremost, presidential debates are educational. In an era when many voters are not given ample time to start paying attention to the campaign, debates afford candidates the opportunity to provide informative, concise summaries of their major policy positions and viewpoints in a single evening. Research has shown that voters learn from debates. After watching a single debate, viewers are more accurately able to describe the platforms of the candidates and this often prompts them to seek out additional information about the candidates.
Modern presidential debates also provide one of the few indicators as to how the candidates might respond under pressure. Whereas the vast majority of modern campaign events are scripted and edited affairs, debates require candidates to be able to think on their feet and be able to respond to unanticipated events. In this sense, they serve as national "job interviews" for the office. If a candidate gets easily flustered trying to answer a simple question in a debate, it suggests that the candidate may not be able to handle the rigors of the pressure and unpredictability of the presidency. In contrast, when candidates are able to keep their cool during high-stakes events like live debates, it conveys confidence that they'll be prepared when the "3:00 a.m. wake-up call" comes.
Debates also force candidates to do what they should be doing anyways if they want to be president: know something and be able to speak intelligently about a wide range of issues. While the questions from moderators are often predictable, they sometimes throw curve balls that reward the candidates who are better prepared and informed to speak on a wide range of topics.
Despite these advantages, academics and commentators alike have criticized presidential debates, especially for how they're covered by the national media. The vast majority of post-debate coverage and spin from the campaigns focuses on the "horse-race" and how a particular phrase or gesture will ultimately affect the candidates' standing in the polls and electoral prospects. Comparatively little coverage focuses on the candidates' substantive answers to issue and policy questions.
Must Read
Today's Most Read