TV debates have long emerged as the centerpiece of election campaigns, allowing voters to single-handily compare candidates’ policies and personalities. As things stand now, Korean voters may have to pick the next president without watching a single clash between the two major contenders only.
The Central Election Management Committee will hold three presidential debates until the Dec. 19 poll, but these are all trilateral discussions, including a third-party candidate with a negligible approval rating.
It’s not certain who the participation by the nominee of a splinter leftist party would benefit more, between liberal Moon Jae-in or conservative Park Geun-hye. What’s certain is the three-way debate would waste voters’ time and distract their attention away from the two important candidates to a considerable extent.
No doubt voters here also would like to see a direct, head-to-head battle of logic and persuasion like those in advanced democracies.
Critics say nationally-televised debates put style ahead of substance, or image over individuality. Still few devices can beat one-on-one debate in giving voters opportunities to glimpse into the candidates’ strengths and weaknesses in emotional control and quick reaction to unexpected situations. If stumping speeches show candidates with heavy make-up, TV debates reveal their naked faces if momentarily.
And this makes it all the more regrettable for Park to persistently refuse to engage herself in a one-on-one debate with Moon. The nominee of the ruling Saenuri Party earlier rejected debate proposals from liberal rivals, saying they had yet to unify their candidacies. The recent departure of independent Ahn Cheol-soo has left only Moon in the opposition corner, but Park wouldn’t enter the ring, saying her schedule is too packed until Dec. 18 to have a single fistfight.
This is a pitiably lame excuse, and an act of refusing to provide the minimal service a candidate for the top office can offer the electorate. Candidates usually won’t have a debate when they are confident of better electability and therefore think they have more to lose than gain from debates, or they have poor substance, either in policy content or in individual ability, that can be laid bare in no-holds-barred verbal battles. We don’t know to which case Park belongs, but failure to accept challenges in any case reveals the fatal lack of confidence a top leader should have.
Voters instead saw what type of communication Park prefers in her live TV discussion with panelists on Monday night. Even in the one-woman-show dubbed the ``interview with the nation,” in which most participants and even their questions were reportedly prearranged, Park was often seen fumbling before some ``unexpected” questions and had to get over the crisis with the help of an unfairly sympathetic moderator.
People wanting to lead a country should not be afraid of going before their electorate in unaffected, straightforward ways. Nor do the glib-talking, experienced talkers in debates win the elections. All they need is to show sincerity and consistency in honest ways.
If even that is too much for Park, many of her supporters will likely reconsider their candidate.