Candidates for election to the office of the president have been debating each other since 1858 when Abraham Lincoln encountered Stephen A Douglas. Since then debates have taken place between Thomas Dewey and Harold Stassen, 1948; Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver, 1956; John F Kennedy and Richard Nixon, 1960; Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, 1976; Ronald Reagan and John Anderson, 1980; Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale, 1984; George Bush and Michael Dukakis, 1988; Bill Clinton and George Bush, 1992; Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, 1996; Al Gore and George Bush, 2000; George Bush and John Kerry, 2004, and John McCain and Barack Obama 2008. The debate in 1858 was carried by newspapers and readers came to know within a few days what the issues in the election were and where the two candidates stood. Since 1948, exchanges between the contenders have been reported in both the print and electronic media, and in more recent times, the opposing candidates have been shown confronting each other on the television screens. Many millions of persons in America and elsewhere in the world watch them and make their assessments. On Thursday, October 4, President Barack Obama appeared on a stage face to face with Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for the office of the president. They spoke mostly on issues relating to the domestic economy. Many of the viewers got the impression that Obama was distant, aloof and professorial. Romney, on the other hand, appeared to be sharp, secure and confident. The audience for the most part seemed to have concluded that Romney had won the debate. It should be noted however that Obama did not use the opportunities that could come his way for exposing Romney’s faults. He did not for instance point out that Romney had earlier discounted 47 percent of American households, alleging that they did not pay income tax. Analysts found that such households amounted to no more than 28 percent. The impression grew that Romney was putting down the lower middle class. To mitigate the damage that may have been thus caused to his standing, he professed to be an admirer and supporter of the lower income groups. In doing so, he moved to a centrist position during the debate. His assertion that he would lower the taxes without adding to the budget deficit was not found to be convincing. The viewing public did not feel that the debate had brought out satisfactory solutions to the grave problems the country faced. Moreover, the commonality between the two candidates was more striking than their differences. This debate was followed by one between the two vice presidential candidates, Joe Biden and Paul Ryan. Biden was livelier and substantively engaging than his boss had been earlier, and Ryan sounded knowledgeable, confident and competent. The party faithful applauded their own candidate but neutral observers rated the contest as a draw. Debate between rival candidates for elective office is a useful agency for energising the democratic process. If the candidates have held high office, it gives them a chance to explain and justify their previous performance. It allows them to tell the people what in their view the major issues in politics are and how they intend to respond to them. The people can make their own assessments of each candidate’s credentials and decide whom they will support on the polling day. There has been no debate of this kind in Pakistan. Some of the contending politicians appear simultaneously on TV talk shows and respond to questions posed by the anchor. They do not want to listen to one another. Nor do they speak when it is their turn to do so. They interrupt one another and two or more of them speak at the same time with the result that viewers cannot know what any of them is saying. The participants in these shows are usually the second-ranking spokespersons of their respective parties. Occasionally, the principals will be interviewed, but they do not appear on the stage facing each other and answering questions from the monitor. It would make election campaigns more meaningful from the standpoint of the voters if debates in the American style took place in Pakistan. The ethnic and regional party leaders would probably not be interested in them. It would be instructive to watch a face-to-face debate between the two mainstream party leaders, Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan. Let us imagine what these two would say. Let us suppose that the debate is to last for two hours, each candidate having 15 minutes to make his opening statement and three minutes to answer each question posed to him. Listeners will probably want to know what they will do to improve the prevailing conditions. This they will do, but they will first condemn each other’s past performance. Nawaz Sharif will be at a disadvantage here because his conduct during his two terms as prime minister left much to be desired. Imran Khan, on the other hand, has never held high public office. They will agree on the identification of the major problems to be met but they will disagree on how this is to be done. They will both concede that terrorism arising out of extremism poses a serious threat to the country’s good order. Sharif will probably want the army to combat the Taliban who are its main perpetrators and kill them or chase them out. For the last several years, Imran Khan has been taking the curious position that our government should have a dialogue with them and negotiate a modus vivendi. This recommendation is wholly untenable. Let us send Imran Khan as our emissary to the Taliban. He tells their representative that the two of them are fellow Muslims, Pakistanis, and therefore brothers, that many of the Islamic directives have already been made into law, and if in his view there are some that have been overlooked, his government would be willing to give them serious consideration. The Taliban spokesperson will say that Imran Khan is no brother of his. He will add that he has no interest in the survival and wellbeing of Pakistan as a state, that he is concerned only with the prevalence of his own version of Islam, which alone is correct while all others are heresies whose adherents are infidels and deserve to be wiped out. The Taliban want to abolish the present system of politics and governance in this country, bring it under their own rule, and remake it in their own image. Imran Khan should think this over and then tell us if there is any basis for negotiations between them and us. The writer is professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts and can be reached at anwarsyed@cox.net