In the contemporary political landscape, presidential debates have become a staple event, often viewed as a critical platform where candidates showcase their policies, intellect, and ability to lead.
However, the absence of prominent figures such as Lazarus Chakwera and Peter Mutharika from the upcoming presidential debate scheduled for August 21 raises an important question: Are presidential debates truly necessary indicators of a candidate’s capability to govern effectively? The answer to this is no; debates, while useful in some respects, are not necessarily important or definitive measures of one’s ability to deliver effective leadership.
Firstly, leadership and governance are complex functions that extend far beyond the ability to perform well in a structured debate format.
Debates are often constrained by time limits, rigid formats, and the need for quick thinking under pressure, which may not accurately reflect a candidate’s strategic vision, decision-making capacity, or problem-solving skills.
Leadership requires long-term planning, consistent execution of policies, and the capacity to unite diverse groups of people—qualities that are rarely encapsulated in a few minutes of verbal exchanges on a debate stage.
Moreover, the nature of debates tends to prioritize charisma, rhetoric, and sometimes even the ability to deflect or score points against opponents, rather than substantive policy discussion. Candidates who are eloquent speakers or skilled in debate tactics may gain an advantage regardless of their actual governance track record or policy depth.
Conversely, candidates who choose not to participate may be focusing their energy on more meaningful engagements, such as direct community interaction, policy development, or coalition-building, which are more indicative of their commitment and readiness to lead.
It is also important to consider the political context in which debates occur.
In many cases, debates can be manipulated or designed to favor certain candidates or narratives, thereby reducing their fairness and usefulness as evaluative tools. The format and moderation can sometimes limit the complexity of issues discussed or force candidates into soundbite politics rather than thoughtful deliberation.
This environment may discourage serious candidates from participating, especially if they believe the debate will not allow for nuanced discussion of critical issues facing the nation.
Furthermore, the decision by Lazarus Chakwera and Peter Mutharika to abstain from the debate might reflect a strategic choice grounded in their understanding of their own strengths and the expectations of their electorate.
Their leadership capabilities should be assessed based on their track records, policy proposals, governance achievements, and the trust they inspire in their supporters.
These factors provide a more comprehensive picture of a leader’s ability to deliver than a single televised event.
Historical examples also demonstrate that some of the most effective leaders never shined in debates or did not participate in them at all.
Leadership is often tested during crises, in legislative halls, or through executive actions—arenas that demand more than quick thinking and rhetorical skill.
The ability to build consensus, make tough decisions, and implement policies that improve the lives of citizens is far more critical than a candidate’s performance in a debate setting.
In addition, the rise of digital media and direct communication channels has changed how candidates connect with voters.
Town halls, social media platforms, policy papers, and interviews provide alternative ways for candidates to present their ideas and engage with the electorate.
These methods can offer more depth and accessibility than debates, allowing voters to form informed opinions based on comprehensive information rather than soundbites.
Critics might argue that debates offer transparency and a level playing field for candidates to confront each other publicly.
While this is true to an extent, the reality is that not all voters watch debates, and not all debates are equally accessible or neutral.
The effectiveness of debates in informing voters depends heavily on media coverage, voter interest, and the quality of the questions posed.
In some cases, debates can devolve into spectacle rather than substance, leaving voters more confused than enlightened.
It is also worth noting that the democratic process is multifaceted. Elections involve campaigns that last months or years, during which candidates engage with various stakeholders, outline their visions, and are scrutinized by the public and media.
Debates are only one component of this larger process and should not be overemphasized as the ultimate test of leadership capability.
While presidential debates can serve as useful forums for public political discourse, they are not necessarily important or definitive indicators of a candidate’s capability to deliver effective leadership.
The absence of figures like Lazarus Chakwera and Peter Mutharika from a scheduled debate should not be interpreted as a weakness or lack of readiness to lead.
Instead, leadership should be evaluated through a broader lens that considers experience, policy depth, integrity, and the ability to execute and deliver on promises.
Ultimately, the true measure of a president lies not in their debating skills but in their capacity to govern wisely and effectively for the benefit of their people.
Feedback:099 208 24 24
Email: jonesgadama@gmail.com
