ENTRY #3

SOURCE: http://www.voanews.com/content/ap-argentina-presidential-debate/2991841.html

A FRUITFUL INSTANCE IN OUR DEMOCRATIC HISTORY

If we take into account that in a presidential debate different points of view about the future of a nation are expounded, we should definitely agree on the fact that it is an enriching and necessary opportunity to know what the candidates think about a wide range of topics closely related to ways of governing and life in society. A political debate should not be left aside before elections. In contrast, it should be considered vital –and why not compulsory? in any part of the world. Moreover, if the majority of the citizens do not know the profiles or the interests the candidates represent (not because they do not want to, but just because they are immersed in an atmosphere in which politics is synonym of corruption and bad experiences), a debate is the chance in which people can find the justifications to their choices. Those preconceptions of politics have been intrinsically related to our history, and it can be clearly seen since only a few days ago the first presidential debate was carried out in our country. Perhaps we have become aware of this modality of arguing the destiny of a nation by watching American candidates debating on different topics some weeks before their presidential elections. But in Argentina it was an NGO the one which had to organise such an important event. Why has not a country which is really advanced in matters of social inclusion, diversity and human rights issues been given the chance of having a presidential debate before 2015? What have the causes of the invisible and not broadcasted discussions between candidates been?  May have the political parties been afraid of showing up their weaknesses? It is not needless to say that any opportunity of people arguing about common interests is extremely relevant for the people involved, the citizens in this case. A debate is essential not only in terms of knowing what candidates we are going to choose and what political parties they belong to but also in terms of the representation we will have once we have voted.

Once the debate on TV finished, the first idea that came up to my mind was that the dynamic of the debate could have been more fluent. Personally, I consider the questions the candidates asked each other could have been sharper, focusing on the weaknesses each politician had in diverse fields such as economy, security, public health and international relations. In spite of being the youngest candidate in the presidential elections, Nicolás Del Caño had a surprisingly good stage presence and he knew how to answer in an argumentative and catching way to every question, taking advantage of the time given to interrogate other candidates and ask them for precise information. He also asked Massa why he demands presenteeism on the teachers at public schools since he has not attended any of the Senate sessions throughout the year. On the other hand, an interesting perspective presented by Margarita Stolbizer emphasised the abuse of power we can hand in to our representatives once they are chosen. We should be aware that we not only choose a person to represent us in the Executive Power, but also people who will do it in the Legislative Power. It will be prosperous for our democracy if we have a senate in which diverse political parties and all our democracy can have their own voice. In fact, our representatives should not be given a blank check as if we allow them to do whatever they want, yet we should be smart enough to be able to decide who will represent us in a democratic and plural way. Not rising up my hands just because the one which suggests the project belongs to my political party is one of the attitudes we have to start eradicating if we want to live in an authentic democracy. Instead, arguing, evaluating and criticising each idea involved in the project presented will help us to grow strongly as a nation.

Although I consider Daniel Scioli, the candidate who leads the political polls –more than 10% over the second-, should have been in the debate, rumor has it that a pact between the main two opposition leaders –Mauricio Macri and Sergio Massa- would have been carried out if Scioli had gone to expound his ideals. Regardless of you are pro or against the political party Scioli belongs to –which had been governing Argentina during the last twelve years-, you should accept that he has been the most consistent and coherent in his proposals if we take into consideration the three candidates with more chances to win as shown in the polls. In fact, Scioli’s excuses not to go to the debate focused on the changes some of the candidate have had thorughout their politcal careers, such as the position against and pro YPF nationalization and the continuity or not of different social subsidies. Apart from that, the fact of the organisers leaving an empty lectern and some jouirnalists saying that Argentinian economy has been stuck in the last years was not objective enough. In contrast, those commentaries ended up being a sign of the bullets that would have been shot to the only representative who aspires to continue the current political model. Finally, it is useful to remark that our opposition is so diverse that the only thing Nicolás Del Caño and Mauricio Macri have in common is the mere fact of being opponents to the current political model.