Over the course of respective days, 2 debates were held with the participation of candidates for president of the Republic of Poland. In the first, only POPiS representatives were initially to participate, but opposition from their competitors forced an extension of the format at the last minute. However, not all politicians reached Horse, and the very clash did not delight the substantive level. The same can be said of a duel organised by tv Republic, even though it was planned more in advance.
In favour of these first debates in the ongoing presidential campaign, the fact is that in both cases there is simply a more engaging section with questions from candidates to their opponents, and the full clashes lasted much longer than many debates from the past – nearly 3 hours alternatively of just over one, as in 2020eye.
Polish electoral campaign, e.g. evasive art
The fact that there are at least a fewer debates ahead of us in the current run is simply quite a few advancement towards the erstwhile presidential elections, but joy weakens the deficiency of a set of 2 erstwhile duels. The competition in Koński was boycotted by Sławomir Mentzen and Adrian Zandberg among the main candidates, while the invitation to the debate in the Republic was rejected by Rafał Trzaskowski and Magdalena Biejat. In the first case, the reason was the chaotic organization, in the second the organizer himself.
One of the sources of the weakness of Polish debates is the stubbornness of the media and the resulting reluctance of politicians to appear in hostile stations, where frequently questions are highly biased. Incidentally, the competition for the stupidest wins for now “how much sex is there?” which allowed for a real festival The peasant mind in the Republic. However, 1 can get the impression that this is simply a convenient excuse for candidates fleeing from the debates – Simon Holovnia and Adrian Zandberg showed that they could win in enemy territory, responding wisely to stupid questions.
There is simply a avoidance of direct duels, especially with weaker poll opponents. For example, Trzaskowski refuses to debate Mentzen, who in turn refuses to clash with Hołownia or Zandberg, although in this case it seems to be a legitimate self-preservation instinct. In any case, the regulation is clear: a stronger candidate never wants to meet a weaker candidate due to the fact that he would have more to lose in specified a duel. The question is whether this is how democratic elections should work.
What if he debated everyone?
In an perfect scenario, each registered presidential candidate should receive an chance to present his program and face him with rival proposals in a direct conversation. This would let careful voters to have opinions about individual policies and informed voting, thus raising the standards of civilian life. any countries follow this principle.
Portugal can service as a model example. Campaigns for the presidential and parliamentary elections are set for a clear goal: each 1 of them should be wiped out in the debate. So during the last presidential run in a series of debates, organised jointly by public and private stations, all 7 candidates could present their programs and face them with the proposals of each of the competitors. In total, there were 23 clashes, of which all candidates participated in the last two, and the remaining 21 were one-on-one duels. In parliamentary elections, there is simply a akin rule, only that leaders or another organization representatives present in the parliament clash.
Not everywhere is so colorful, because, for example, in France in 2022 there was not a single debate involving all the candidates, and this was due to president Macro's refusal to participate. Sounds familiar. In Germany, however, 13 debates were accompanied by the final parliamentary elections, of which only SPD and CDU leaders met in 2 of which 4 major organization leaders, 4 more gathered a wider group of politicians, and the last 3 were different different configurations. Meanwhile, in Poland in 2023 only one debate on public televisionOn an embarrassingly low level. Are tv clashes even applicable in the era of social media dominance?
Who cares about the debates in TikTok's time?
Rather common is the opinion that modern debates do not substance as much as they erstwhile did erstwhile voters could little frequently see and hear individual candidates. Now it is easier to run on TikTok, for example, where you can rapidly promote previously unknown candidate – even if this is not always full legal, as the Romanian case has shown. Films and short entries besides scope audiences, regular untraceable policies, and thus more susceptible to manipulation.
Nevertheless, the popularity of debates remains advanced and direct clashes between politicians proceed to be key points of electoral campaigns. For now, the best example was the debate in Koński – despite organizational chaos, it managed to scope over 6 million viewers, and its fragments became virals on social media. It is clear that voters are inactive curious in debates, and any of them decide on whom they will vote. And even if the substantive level is not besides high, it's better to trust on them than on TikToka materials.
Another question is: how do we halt politicians from fleeing debates? Could it introduce a statutory work to participate in a certain number of duels for candidates? Sounds tempting, but the devil is in the details. Who would organize specified debates erstwhile tv stations are stubborn and do not inspire widespread trust? How to deal with a large number of candidates, in practice preventing a series of one-on-one meetings? At this point, it is an insurmountable obstacle, even though there is simply a likely deficiency of support for specified solutions.
So it seems that the only real threat to those reluctant to debate politicians is the negative reception of specified behaviour. Sometimes the punishment for those fleeing clashes is advanced – in that Romania, the failure of the candidates of the establishment was partially due to their absence from most tv debates. Looking at the latest polls, the debate in Konski Trzaskowski did not aid – but until the absence is even more stigmatized, there will not be a chance for a appropriate pre-election debate.
