What’s really troubling is that a number of supposedly enlightened personalities are also guilty of the same stupidity. Perhaps, they’re just taking the position that such pandering statements already constitute a platform because saying otherwise would only expose their candidates’ vacuity. One of them even insists that the so-called “social contract” of Senator Noynoy Aquino is a platform.

Contrary to what these pseudo-enlightened people are saying, a platform is supposed to be made up of specific plans. Analyzing the type of political discussions we currently have, it’s easy to conclude that there is hardly any specificity. Our candidates are basically saying the same general statements, a fact highlighted at a recent forum organized by the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

(excerpt from a gmanews.tv report; bold highlight mine)

Liberal Party standard bearer Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III on Tuesday cried foul over a perceived bias against him by the moderator of a forum hosted by the Philippine Chamber of Commerce Industry (PCCI). “Napaghahalataan yata masyado, manong Tony (It’s becoming too obvious, brother Tony),” Aquino told moderator Tony Lopez after he was bypassed in the sequence of questioning. Aquino was referring to what he felt was Lopez’s preference for his closest rival Sen. Manuel Villar Jr. of the Nacionalista Party. Lopez, for his part, apologized and quipped: “Ah sorry, kasi bawat tanong pare-pareho lang kayo ng sagot (Oh, I’m sorry, that’s because for each question you all give the same answer).”

This lack of specificity does not help the voter make out exactly who among the candidates has the better solution to a particular problem. The following sentence from an article featured in The Economist should give us an idea why this is  not a good thing.

On campaign platforms, policy is nearly absent, though the country’s problems are clear.

While it is good more people are now aware that the word “platform” exists, it would be better if they actually know what it refers to.

A Debater’s Wet Dream

Imagine this

1. all the candidates running for the office of the President of the Republic,
2. on air over free TV and major AM radio stations,
3. live, with no assistants,
4. for three hours and with no commercial breaks;
5. each candidate will have 8-10 minutes to introduce his/her platform,
6. then be interpellated by one randomly picked co-candidate for three minutes on the speech for the platform.
7. Once all candidates have spoken about their platform, an impartial moderator will then ask pertinent questions about the Presidency, and shall give five minutes for each candidate to formulate a response to each question.

Think this is possible in our lifetime? Think we can persuade GMA7 and ABS-CBN to air this for free?

In response to benign0’s blog post about the power of the mass media over the 2010 elections, I am daring the executives of GMA-7, ABS-CBN, Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star, SMART Communications, and GLOBE Telecoms- and good-natured Congressmen and Senators, for good measure- to make this dream come true by March 2010.

We need a smarter method of choosing candidates. And mass media, being the major recipient of campaign expenses, SHOULD BE MADE TO OFFSET THE EARNINGS THAT THEY MADE OVER LEGAL BUT HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE POLITICAL AD SPENDING BY THE CANDIDATES.

Repost this on your blog. Post this on facebook, twitter, multiply- hell, even AdultFriendFinder.com. I don’t care if you don’t credit me as the original proponent of this event. I just want this to happen.

Help me make the debater’s wet dream come true.

* I suggested three hours since we’re still not sure about the number of candidates running for President.

Pagbabago ba ika nyo? O heto. Simulan na ang pagbabago.  Simulan na ang debate.