For an independent panel on presidential debate

Principally, such debates merely help to reinforce extant political beliefs among voters. Perhaps if presidential debates have any influence at all on the voting decision of electorate it would be on the relatively small number of undecided voters who need to evaluate political information to make informed choices. These facts are hardly new; they are […]

Principally, such debates merely help to reinforce extant political beliefs among voters. Perhaps if presidential debates have any influence at all on the voting decision of electorate it would be on the relatively small number of undecided voters who need to evaluate political information to make informed choices. These facts are hardly new; they are the results of several decades of empirical researches in political communication. But presidential debates are not without their merits and significance:  they provide veritable platforms for the candidates to showcase their grasp and understanding of socio-political and economic issues before the voting audience. Besides, watching presidential debates can be great fun, probably akin to watching a game of soccer between any of the big names in the Premier League.  Like footballers, you see the candidates trying to impress supporters and spectators and becoming victorious in their campaigns.       
After several weeks of horse-trading, hoopla, personal attacks and highfalutin eulogies between the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and All Progressives Congress candidates, Nigerians would be   looking forward to having the two key candidates, Goodluck   Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari, come face-to-face in a live debate. However, that expectation seems unrealizable, again, as it was in 2011 when the two candidates decided to feature in different leagues, with Buhari in the NN24 debate, while Goodluck appeared in a debate organized by the Broadcasting Organisation of Nigeria (BON).  On the 2015 presidential debate put together   by the Nigeria Election Debate Group (NEDG), the APC says it would not participate   because it did not believe in the credibility of the process.  A statement in Abuja by Director, Media and Publicity of the APCPCO, Malam Garba Shehu, described   the exercise as wearing “the toga of government control,” particularly since the organisers “are composed mainly of agencies and allies of the incumbent PDP administration.” According to the spokesperson, “a salutary inspection of the composition of NEDG brings into focus the Broadcasting Organisations of Nigeria (BON), Nigerian Television Authority (NTA), Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria (FRCN) and the Africa Independent Television (AIT, owned by a PDP chieftain). And going by the avalanche of inflammatory statements, misinformation and blatant lies being propagated by some of these media against our party and candidates contrary to the Kofi Annan-brokered Abuja Accord, and the failure of these aggressors to desist and apologise, have left the APC Campaign with no option than to steer clear of any premeditated smear campaign that could be inimical to our prospective electoral success.”  
Whether this explanation   justifies the party’s pull out or not has been generating intense debate on its own in the last couple of days. The PDP campaign group believes that the opposition’s   decision to stay away was a consequence of what it called the “intellectual laziness” of its candidate.  Its spokesperson, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode, who actually used that expression   seemed to be in his usual elements,   thumping his chest that a debate between his candidate and Buhari would leave the former, battered, even if APC members “fill the panel with friends, set the questions, give copies of the questions to their candidates before the debate and even prepare answers for him.”
  Actually, neither Goodluck nor Buhari is a great debater. And Nigerians know this, for sure, as they have seen them in their best and worst forms in recent times. While it is necessary that the presidential candidates come face-to-face in a debate, the need for   transparent platforms    cannot be overemphasized. A presidential debate is a contest; and no side would   love to enter into such contest, if it believes the terrain is unfair. I am sure that Fani-Kayode would be the first to cry if the scenario he so boastfully painted about APC-controlled debate will unfold before him.   All over the world,   parties   protest whenever they have doubts about the credibility of presidential debates.   In the US for instance, who is picked as moderator   matters a lot as accusations of “liberal” vs. “conservative” bias usually resonate in electoral coverage and campaigns. In October 2012 presidential   debate between Democratic Party candidate Barack Obama and Republican Party’s Mitt Romney, Candy Crowley of the CNN who moderated the debate was accused of liberal bias. In the heat of that debate, Romney had questioned Obama on whether he had referred to attack by militants on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi as “act of terror” rather than spontaneous attack which was a consequence of anti-Islamic video protest. But Crowley answered the question, instead of Obama who was going to   scratch his head   to fetch the answer.  “He did in fact, sir, call it an act of terror,” she said. She would receive a large dose of criticisms for this bias as her curious intervention was seen to have saved Obama from public embarrassment. This is not exactly what the NEDG may do, but   that bias sometimes comes into play if not well-handled is not unarguable.  Perhaps implicit in the fears of the APC is that a candidate, who ordinarily should be “clueless” in providing answers to certain unpalatable questions, suddenly becomes an orator   giving   first-class answers and mesmerizing the audience because he had a foreknowledge of the questions.
However, this 2015 debate ought to be held in the interest of the candidates, the parties and the electorate. And the umpires must be openly non- partisan and be seen to be in the process and style of its operations.    What distinguishes   the   Commission on Presidential Debates in the US, co-chaired by Frank Fahrenkorpf and Michael McCurry, that solely handles presidential debates since 1988, is its largely non -partisan nature. Decisions here are   made by board of directors who represent non-partisan interests.   The commission sets the rules of debates including how and when moderators select questions, among others, sometimes with active awareness of the parties.  The NEGD can help itself by been more transparent, and be seen to be so. It could even name some APC members   into the Group and make its process more transparent so that it would not be seen as mono-partisan.  
 If doing this would be too late, other interested groups can take up the challenge and organize debates for the presidential candidates before the election. I hear that the Newspaper Proprietors Association of Nigeria (NPAN) and Arise/ Channels are working on another debate. Anyway, Buhari should attend at least one of the debates.  The good thing is that whichever debate the APC candidate features in, President Goodluck Jonathan, according to Femi Fani-Kayode would be there to trounce Buhari. And he should not have any excuse for not attending, after all, President   Obama attended up to three presidential debates at different centres in the U.S. in 2012.  
Yakoob is of the University of Abuja