Now that the elections are over and the electoral hangover is fading, perhaps it is time to reflect on one of the most striking elements of the electoral campaigns, the debates.
Citizens should know the different offers that aspire to gain their trust, the specific actions in the different areas of government, possible agreements and the people in charge of carrying out these policies. The idea that there is confrontation, in debate format, between the different parties, knowing their ideas and proposals, in addition to criticizing the opponent's offer and highlighting their contradictions or even the impossibility of carrying them out, is a democratic, illustrative and clarifying exercise, to which we are entitled as a society.
In each election we witness the pathetic spectacle of political formations of different signs that, believing they have an advantage in voting intention, refuse to debate, because they think that the risk does not compensate them. Faced with this contempt for the electoral body, it is only possible to regulate by law the obligation to participate in these confrontations. It would be a requirement, prior to the electoral contest, that all political forces that participate in the elections should accept, only in this way would this right be ensured to the citizens. All topics for debate are important, those related to the pocket are of particular interest; therefore, a specific debate on economic issues is unavoidable.
But we must go further, objectivity is always essential, especially in this type of act. If a bottle is half full, some will see it as half full and others as half empty, according to their interests. The objective fact is that the bottle is mediated, that cannot be denied, although the partisan interpretation of this fact is subjective. The data, official figures (CPI, GDP, unemployment level) or certain political positions adopted in the past, are stubborn, because they are verifiable; hence, their objectivity. Let's not fall into the trumpism of denying the obvious.
It should not be allowed that, in debates that arouse great interest, inaccuracies, falsified data or outright lies are slipped in, aimed at confusing citizens. For example, certain statistical figures cannot be given as true, when there is unquestionable data that refutes them or that a law was voted in parliament in a certain sense, when there are the minutes of the sessions and videos to deny it. It is not possible to lie about objective data. There must be a kind of Ethics Committee behind the cameras, which after debating each thematic block, if there has been any type of controversy or falsehood in verifiable data, highlights it, simply giving the true data.
The media have a clear social responsibility, you cannot compete to organize a debate and then allow falsehoods to be poured into it, clearly refutable only with the material of their own information services. The citizens, the main objective of the confrontation, have every right to this information in an objective and impartial way.
