While we enjoy a haven of peace on the eve of the largest elections in the history of our country, with more than 20 thousand positions of popular representation that will be at stake on June 2, the electoral institutes are fine-tuning the number of debates that, at a minimum, must be held between the candidates for the presidency of the Republic, the governorships, the federal and local Congress, as well as the city councils.
The contrast of ideas is only one element of many, such as advertising guidelines, proposals, interviews in the media and social networks and a whole host of political-electoral tools – which even incorporate the dirty war – that make up all that framework that have to do with political campaigns.
However, the practice of debates is one of the most complete expressions to weigh the worth of the candidates and their proposals, although the latter in most cases are riddled with lies.
The official propaganda states that the debates have the objective of exposing and confronting electoral approaches and platforms, in order to disseminate them as part of a democratic exercise, under a previously established format and with observance of the principles of equity and equal treatment.
There are various myths around debates, such as the one who comes first in the polls does not need to participate in them, or that a serious mistake in these can sink a certain candidate, or even the direction the debate will take and their results, depending on the bias of the questioning by the moderators.
There are plenty of examples of the three previous cases, especially in democracies in other latitudes, however, in Mexico we could say that regarding the presidential debates, they have not influenced the final result of the elections.
Due to a very stuffy and formal format that does not allow the free confrontation of ideas, proposals and positions, the presidential debates of the last four elections, well, ‘just’, have not determined the final course of the candidate who won the election. triumph.
Neither Peña Nieto won the 2012 election for having triumphed in the debates against AMLO or Josefina Vázquez Mota, nor did López Obrador win in the 2018 elections for having ‘dragged’ José Antonio Meade or Ricardo Anaya with his eloquence.
The truth is that on the subject of debates we are very out of date with what happens in other countries, for example in the United States, where direct confrontation of ideas between candidates is allowed and is only limited so that they do not go off the rails. tangent or evade specific accusations and accusations against any of the participants.
From now on, in the case of Mexico, Mario Delgado is questioning the first debate that the INE authorized for the presidential candidates, because he did not like the designation of ITESO as in charge of the selection, the questions because the director of this Institute has manifested against the 4T.
ITESO was selected as the non-public institution to define the questions, however, say the ruling party, its director Rossana Reguillo has shown animosity against the 4T due to comments expressed on her social networks.
As can be seen, from now on those who score in the polls are taking great care and those who are in pursuit of first place are clinging to not only having more debates, but also that the verbal fencing be freer.
The truth is, dear reader, don’t expect much from the presidential debates; regarding the modification of places in electoral preferences, due to having a very stuffy and limited format that inhibits the free exercise of freedom of expression.
In this unfinished model of the legal framework for political campaigns, a new electoral reform is required, but that will be at another time, although the president insists on modifying the rules of the game to ‘quarter to twelve’.
The voter is faced with the dilemma of shooting hundreds of spots, fanciful promises that will be forgotten, in the box of lies, the manure that will be sent between candidates; or better to listen and watch the debates to know who you are going to vote for.
Political marketing has created perfect candidates who have all kinds of aptitudes and qualities, when in reality they are mere mortals, more ordinary than common, whose only merit is to have been at the right time and place, so that in one case they have been uncovered. ; or in the other, be inflated by the main guest of the National Palace.
And the Mexican debate is privileged, which is only a sophistry to cajole voters.