The good thing about presidential debates is that there is no dagat ng basura to hide behind, nor invocation of Mama and Papa that can protect a candidate from a confrontation with the one person whose opinion can be either his well-earned reward, or the debacle of his ambition: the thinking
voter.

At last week’s First Edition Presidential Debate held at the University of the Philippines in Diliman, one question that stuck — like a discarded gum on your Havana or Havaianas, depending on whether you claim to be maka-mahirap — was addressed to Manny Villar: Which would you rather have, wealth or power? To which Villar responded: Kapangyarihan, para matulungan ang mahihirap.

People wearing shirts in a blinding shade of orange applauded. The rest of us, well… Lourd de Veyra calls it the “Wowowee- fication” of Philippine politics: candidates go around flaunting how much they love the poor and how they will fight for that all-too-abstract ideal called “change,” all the while ignoring us, the Undecided, we who are more than willing to cast our votes on the basis of what each has to offer.

We all want good men in office, that’s true, but an effective government must be more than just that.

Our current political system — carried over from long ago — is one that makes it difficult for a good man to remain good. Or, at the very least, one that renders him ineffective, unable to move lest he be willing to sell his soul to the devil, so to speak. I really do understand why Brother Eddie is calling for “moral leadership” (although I must say that I do NOT understand why Brother Eddie relishes referring to himself in the third person), but the issue lies elsewhere.

An effective government lies in the doing. What the thinking voter wants to know is this: What’s the plan?

Well, among snippets brought to light in last week’s debate, are:

• Noynoy wants to uphold the Constitution.
• Gordon wants higher salaries for schoolteachers.
• Gibo wants to up the material provision for the Armed Forces.

Well and good. But where will they get the money? Raising taxes? Eliminating corruption? Abolishing automatic debt allocation? How?

Governance is a tricky thing, I learned in Political Science. It’s not just the will of one man in office, but a political will. It is an intricate interplay of several, often conflicting, interests by different men and groups of men in power. It is inheriting a whole range of national problems from a sick administration.

And the President to whom I entrust my ballot ought to be someone who can handle all that.

Will the President I elect be able to wield influence in the legislature?

Can he exercise firm control over the military?

Does he have the guts to clash against and reform a corrupt bureaucracy?

Does he have the right priorities and strategies regarding the economy?

Will he make shady deals for personal or political gain?

Will his Cabinet be composed of capable people, or will he appoint these positions in view of repaying political debts?

For that matter, how will the worst-case scenario of GMA as Speaker of the House shape his administration?

These are questions the thinking voter wants answers to. Will a debate, even in several installments, ever suffice?

Probably not.

The most we can do is draw conclusions from impressions — from the way they stand, the extent of detail with which they are capable of answering, the quickness of wit that hopefully demonstrates thorough knowledge, and perhaps some anecdotes to illustrate how they draw from experience.

And while words can only go so far, and it is a man of action who propels a nation forward, it is still a militant citizenry — watchful, proactive, consistent, both during elections, and more importantly, beyond it — that is the best safeguard to democracy.

(The author is a third year Philosophy major at the University of the Philippines-Diliman)