Breathe
By Jaina Pereyra
This weekend begins the second round of debates for the government of the CDMX and the presidency of the Republic. After the first exercise, the candidates must be nervous: people expect proposals, they say, but they also expect blood. Calmness, charisma, forcefulness. They want "their rooster" (or hen) to surprise the opponent, to give him/her a mortal blow and that this generates an unbridled sympathy, even among those who want the opponent to live.
Debates disappoint, because, let's be honest, it will be difficult to find a litigator as seasoned as Chief Diego or a moment of such humiliation as the one Labastida offered us. Already: we touched the glory and hit rock bottom. There will be no surprise; a new referent. What is the worst best case scenario we can think of? That someone will be paralyzed (hopefully not our "rooster". Or "hen".), that someone will reliably exhibit someone's corruption (hopefully not that of our "rooster". Or "hen".), that someone will decline in favor of someone else (hopefully in favor of our "rooster". Or "hen".). But in one of those cases, we are not even happy with that.
Let's be realistic. No debate will feature a character that we have not seen in months of campaigning and years of political performance. There will not be a proposal that is a surprise. Moreover, we should not think that the proposals are credible. In a country where words are not worth the time it takes to express them, what would be THAT proposal that could change my electoral preferences?
It is always the same. Every six years it's the same. Every debate is the same. Everyone will come out to say that they "won", but they will also say what a tragedy the format is. Many voters will say they are disappointed and will repeat for the umpteenth time that, well, once again we have to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Incredible as it may seem, in the social networks they have spent the entire post-debate (entire weeks) flogging those who, after consistently pointing out the corruption of the federal government, dared to say that Claudia "won the debate" (whatever that means). They continue. No kidding. They are still angry with Latinus' table because he pointed out the obvious: that Claudia won the debate. Because what is winning a debate? Well, fulfilling the objectives of a candidacy. Those who lead in the polls will normally not lose support. Those who are in second place will gain new support. Claudia did it, I think. She was comfortable, more natural than ever, so happy that she had the luxury of getting angry without being labeled as authoritarian. Xóchitl, I believe, did not manage to convince more voters and, therefore, did not fulfill her objective.
But, mind you, to say that Claudia won the debate, contrary to what the Xochilovers have said, is not to endorse a lie, nor to endorse a candidacy, nor to announce a preference. That is to say that Xóchitl should have had the data visible, so that when Claudia lied and said that Xóchitl's accusations were false, Xóchitl could have said: "no, it is not false, I have the evidence here". That is to say that Xóchitl has to be able to control her nerves. That is to say that she must be dressed in a way that she looks presidential, because yes, we live in a world where we are qualified by that, especially if we are women. That is to say that she cannot be reviewing her notes while others are answering, as if she were reciting a poem, that she has to smile, but show her investiture, that she cannot be angry, nor applaud those against whom she is competing.
Now, those who think that the debates should be the most important moments of the campaign are also wrong, I think. They are, yes, the most interesting moments, but let's stop pretending insanity. Today we can already imagine how a Claudia's government will look like and how a Xochitl's government will look like. There is no proposal that will change the trajectories. And then, yes, the debate should be that space where, more than proposals, trajectories are exhibited and contrasted; where the narrative of public problems and their solutions are presented; where we can evaluate the character and the size to hold the position.
In any case, I believe that the debates are the great democratic moment for us, for the voters; they are tests for us and opportunities for us. We win or lose, not our opponents. Let us hope that we know how to take advantage of these opportunities.
The opinions expressed are the responsibility of the authors and are absolutely independent of the position and editorial line of the company. Opinion 51.
Comments ()