Daily Times

Mayhem has erupted on social media ever since PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari proposed a debate between him and PML(N) supremo Nawaz Sharif on a format routinely seen in countries around the globe before the presidential and prime ministerial elections. As younger Sharif urges him to refrain from “taking political rivalries so far” and the entire second team has hopped aboard the sabre-rattling bandwagon, it would do well for everyone to remember that the absence of what Mr Bhutto-Zardari has suggested has repeatedly echoed in our political culture. While these debates seem to have become an endangered species in the likes of the US, there’s a lot to televised discussions that zingers and clapbacks. Seeing the candidates put forward a detailed case on the economy, social policies and international relations helps the voters in choosing which candidate to stamp on. One needs to cut through the noise to actually see whether the elite has been paying attention to what the masses want.

However, these faceoffs should not be limited to two leaders of rival parties. By pitching those who wish to stand at the wheel on every level, the media can effectively play well the part of the watchdog and present the interested voter with the necessary background information. Transparency is the key here. By building on what his late mother Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto had once hinted at, the young scion has once again proved to his party and his supporters that an apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. However, the Sharif brothers could have helped lay the foundation of an honourable tradition if they had chosen to prioritise the greater good. Despite their flaws and limited value, debates can become a rare opportunity to get out of the comforting silos and find the courage within to fight one’s case. If two giants, J F Kennedy and Richard Nixon, could go toe to toe as far back as the 1960 US presidential election, then why can’t our candidates engage in civil debates? *