The political debate that never was

Decades ago, there was a television show called Gladiators. It was a gameshow in which contestants attempted to complete an obstacle course while the Gladiators did their utmost to derail their efforts.

It was a very physical contest with both the Gladiators and the challengers, if I can call them that, donning protective gear as well as a range of “weapons”.

ALSO READ: Elections like being forced into arranged marriage

Every episode was filmed in front of a studio audience and I attended one of the recording sessions at what was then the Standard Bank Arena.

It was controlled chaos and pandemonium. We, the audience, were coaxed into cheering, screaming, gasping, waving banners and every now and then, redoing everything for a second or third take.

Every now and then, the show would build up to a crescendo, and the presenter would say something like: “Wow, what a brilliant move there by Storm.

“We’ll be right back for more heart-stopping action and welcome back…” That was how advertising breaks were worked into the show.

Well, on Sunday evening I attended a live television broadcast.

This time round it was not a game show, but a live event billed as a political debate between five representatives from five different political parties.

What a joke. It was not a debate. It was a question-and-answer session with members of the audience asking questions and the five politicians trying to promote their parties’ policies while being cheered and jeered.

A debate in the true sense of the word is a formal discussion on a particular matter or matter, in which opposing arguments are put forward in an attempt to sway the opposition’s followers.

ALSO READ: Big B is the joke capital of the world

Debating obviously requires exemplary oratory skills by the participants and it does help when the audience is there to listen and learn, rather than to toyi-toyi, disrupt, and threaten.

Unfortunately, Sunday evening’s debate was probably the worst possible advertisement of the state of our democracy and our social fabric.

The level of tolerance displayed by the audience was shockingly low and the questions raised were mostly infantile and hardly gave the participants in the debate an opportunity to engage on any sort of intellectual level.

The whole “debate” was much more like the Gladiator show, except that there was no prize for completing the course.