Is a professional presidential debate feasible in Sri Lanka?

Amidst the excitement surrounding the forthcoming Presidential election, the necessity of conducting a debate between the leading candidates has been discussed by many. In countries like the US, the debate between the contenders for presidency is an important element of the election process. However, no debate has ever been conducted between the aspirants for the top job in the history of Sri Lanka. 

Meanwhile, various media organisations have expressed their willingness to host a presidential debate without outlining a format under which it would take place. The US provides the best example as to how a presidential debate could be held in a methodical manner. All the presidential debates in America from 1988 to 2020 were sponsored and organised by the bipartisan entity – the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Usually three debates took place, with the participation of the leading candidates, but only two debates were held in 2020 between Trump and Biden as the former was tested positive for COVID-19 and therefore the second debate had to be cancelled.

Nevertheless, for the impending election, the campaigns of both Biden and Trump have decided to avoid the CPD and last month agreed for two debates (in June by CNN and in September by ABC News). The method in which the CPD organised the debates until 2020 is useful for any organisation in Sri Lanka which is interested in organising a presidential debate to develop a professional and systematic arrangement. 

During the 2016 US election, the first debate was divided into six segments, allocating 15 minutes for each segment. The selected segments were: economy and job creation, trade, the federal deficit, race relations and policing, the war on terror, and the foreign policy. The second debate was organised in town hall style, in which the questions were asked by selected undecided voters from a variety of socio-economic, racial and political backgrounds. The third and final debate was similar to the format of the first debate with 90 minutes divided into six topics.

Another important aspect associated with the American presidential debates is that they are moderated by respected broadcasters. For instance, in 2016, the internationally renowned CNN journalist Anderson Cooper moderated one of the debates between Clinton and Trump. Unfortunately, there is a severe dearth of accomplished broadcasters in the country’s electronic media and finding a competent individual to act as a moderator would be a huge challenge. Moreover, it would be practically impossible to have three debates and having a town hall-type debate too may not be viable.

Be that as it may, the State-owned ITN hosted a purported presidential debate one week ago and it was hosted by ill-famed Sudarman Radaliyagoda. Ideally for a debate of such magnitude, the modality in which the event takes place has to be determined in advance and needs to be communicated to the participants beforehand. But it appears that the said program did not follow such a systematic and scientific method. Also serious questions arise whether someone like Radaliyagoda was fit and proper to moderate an event of such significance. 

In 2011, Courts ordered Colombo Fraud Investigations Bureau to arrest the controversial politico journalist as he was accused of providing forged documents to two traders to obtain 1,828 tonnes of scrap iron from Sri Lanka Telecom in exchange for Rs. 1.5 million. As Radaliyagoda was close to the Rajapaksa regime, he was evading arrest and what is more the controversial individual was remanded nine years ago on charges of forcibly using a child and producing a false video clip during the 2015 Presidential election. 

In such a backdrop, the Presidential aspirant Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s decision to participate in a debate hosted by a person in the calibre of Radaliyagoda raises question marks about the NPP’s commitment to change the rotten system of governance in the country as well as their vociferous opposition towards bribery, corruption, and abuse of power.