Treat candidates equally on political debates
By PD columnist, July 15, 2022In this political season, the prospects of presidential political debates have had Kenyans with their fingers on the keyboard talking. While over the past month there have been debates held at the county level across the country, probably what has had urban Kenyans engaged most was the debate for the county of Nairobi.
When listening to these Kenyans one would think there were only two people in the race for the Nairobi gubernatorial seat: A politician in name of Johnson Sakaja and a boardroom operator called Polycarp Igathe.
But this debate had more people: Harman Grewal, Nancy Wambui Mwadime, Kenneth Nyamwamu and Esther Thairu.
During the Nairobi gubernatorial debate, while the second-tier debate was tamer and staid, the first tier, as expected was animated and earnest. Sakaja turned up late, failed to apologise for the imprudence and when asked took a rather disdainful disposition. When the moderator got into his skin, he lost his temper and gave the public a disruptive peek into his otherwise cultivated image.
Live television is the wrong space to lose one’s cool for a candidate under scrutiny as Sakaja is. Both the moderators and the candidates seemed to throw out the rule book after that. They did not keep time allotted to each question, sometimes asked one candidate one question, and asked the next a different question; the candidates sometimes talked over the moderators and so on. These are privileges the second-tier candidates never had.
Indeed, those who saw perceived discriminatory treatment of the candidates could have a point. The second-tier candidates, just the four of them, were held outside prime time, were held strictly to time and it seemed the organisers had long made up their minds that these candidates were the “also rans”. It should have not been too difficult to have all six on the same stage.
If a candidate was to be afraid that the debates may not do them great good, then that fear could be real and founded. The army of commentators passed judgement immediately after the debate when the audience at home was still watching, and in all likelihood, sought to shape opinion to their taste.
This was particularly so with the second-tier candidates. Although some displayed flashes of innovative ideas, and had the courage to put themselves up to scrutiny yet some of the panellists showed little respect, and disparaged them making the media appear deterministic and dismissive of them.
It was an opportunity to learn lessons that should not be repeated in the coming debates. Candidates should have some respect for the public. They should not keep the public guessing about their availability. When they decide to participate then they should show up on time and be ready to offer serious ideas.
The rules are the rules and those participating in the debates have signed up on them and therefore should operate by them. Moderation is a function, and it does not matter who the moderator is, the debaters have a duty to respect that function.
All candidates deserve to be treated equally, after all, they have signed up for the contest. The media, either by omission or commission cannot treat some candidates as underdogs. This is the principle under guarding free, fair, and balanced reporting.
In future, it should be debated whether the media should organise and cover debates. It may be worthwhile considering an independent agency organise the debates which will then allow the media a free hand in playing the watchdog role on whether the debates had been properly organised and leaving the accusations of bias to be borne by a different organ.
At the moment the media are too deeply immersed in the organisation and coverage to offer any perceived objective coverage.
— The writer is dean, School of Communication, Daystar University