By George Koumoulli
The word debate means engaging someone with one or more opponents in a discussion about a topic. To be precise, there is a wonderful word in Greek, “telemachia”, which more accurately conveys the televised dialogue between two or more political opponents before an election.
Now, because this graceful word has been refined for the sake of “debate”, only the all-wise people of the Cypriot television stations can enlighten us.
In Cyprus we have not yet watched any debate (telefight) in its classical sense. In fact, what we saw on TV was a pseudo-debate, unless we take the candidates’ endless and boring monologues (repeated in the press and in their interviews) as a tele-battle. I’m sorry to say this, but the participants in the “tele-battle” look like parrots locked in their canopies, and each one whispers its long-winded trope.
The real debate/tele-battle presupposes dialogue, not a monologue. In such a debate, when a candidate for the presidency of the Republic of Cyprus speaks, he sees the other candidates with whom he is supposed to be discussing, and not Mr. Kimitris or Mr. Kareklas or another coordinator.
In a real debate, the candidates cross their swords tet-a-tet. If that were the case, it would make the debate exciting and, something that would interest the channel masters, would sharply increase viewership rates. In summary, in Cyprus “telefighting” is without a fight and quoting rhetoric without confrontation – is a monkey of dialogue.
So how should a real debate be conducted? I give an example, drawing on the experience of France and England. Suppose that three candidates are invited for a debate/telefight, X, Y and Z, and that the time available is 2 hours, i.e. 120 minutes. In the first 40 minutes X will ask questions to the other two- about 20 minutes to each.
In the next 40 minutes Y will do the same to the other two and in turn Z will do the same. After all, voters are interested in the views and priorities of the candidates, not those of the coordinator. The debates for the second Sunday’s elections will be an even simpler process: half the time one candidate would ask the other questions and vice versa in the last half year.
The importance of tele-combat, as I have described it above, can be seen if we take a look at the recent presidential elections in France. At the tv station where the tele-battle was to take place, Macron and Le Pen sat at both ends of a rectangular tet-a-tet table. The reason Macron won was the burning questions that put Le Pen in a very difficult position, that probably a moderator did not have, for various reasons, the courage or desire to submit them. Macron asked Le Pen about her close ties to the Kremlin and about getting a Russian bank loan for her party.
Le Pen replied that she had taken Russian money as no French bank would lend to her party. When she claimed she needed to borrow money like millions of French people, Macron replied that the French were not looking to Russia for funding.
Macron concluded: “You talk to your banker when you talk to Russia, isn’t that so?” But Macron’s coup de grace that he fired at Le Pen, and who probably won the election according to French analysts, was his conclusion about Le Pen that, by the way, also applies to the far-right in Cyprus. He told Le Pen: “You excelled in reactionary, racist, chauvinistic, divisive, but also pro-Russian statements and actions.” Such live matches are also expected in Cyprus and not dry monologues that are appreciated only by those who suffer from insomnia.
It is gratifying that, despite differences in culture, television stations in all democratic countries provide the opportunity to have teleconferences between presidential candidates, prime ministers, legislatures and local government central to their political programmes. Behind this global trend is the belief that debates benefit democracies in many ways, including helping voters make informed choices at the ballot box, encouraging candidates to focus on public policy issues that concern citizens.
One could also argue that telefighting reduces the likelihood of violence by promoting political discourse. In Cyprus, where a political force dominates the media environment, (you know which one!), tele-battles can help all candidates to get their message across to the people, thus breaking the oligopoly of political information.
Since these tele-battles will continue until the presidential elections, let them henceforth take place through free dialogue procedures, so that they contribute to critical thinking and not insult it, create concern and not reassurance, enlighten the citizens and not put them to sleep…
*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of CypriumNews.
