Spanish general elections are very soon - in less than two weeks. Yesterday I had the pleasure (or patience, depending on the degree of optimism) of watching the debate on TV between Zapatero (PSOE candidate for Prime Minister, sort of leftist party) and Rajoy (PP candidate for PM, conservative party). Once the debate (better: sequence of monologues) was over, the press, mass media and political analysts focused on the following aspects:
1. Who has won the debate?
2. Who says who has won the debate?
3. Who do the people think has won the debate?
It's probably not a big discovery to assert that the main aim of the debate isn't, as one would guess from the noun, to create discussion, but to win it, or, more importantly, to give the impression that it has been won.
Some sociologist said a while ago (I can never recall who) that 'whatever is defined as real is real in its consequences'. Translated in the world of politics: do you want to win the elections? Say that you can win them. Say that you will win them.
One example? 'Yes, we can!' - Obama's motto. His start was not the most encouraging, but after -unexpectedly- winning in Iowa, a sort of snowball took off and he is nowadays as close to winning as Hillary is. The key, the message. Yes, indeed, we can! We can change America, we can win the primaries, we can beat McCain. Clarity, self-confidence and optimism: 3 basics in current politics, 3 basics outlined in 3 words.
So nobody should be taken unaware if yesterday's debate between both Spanish candidates was hollow and nothing more than a mere repetition of the messages thrown at the public for the last four years. Neither was actually trying to convince anyone, but to mobilise. Mobilise their people, this is, their potential voters. Rajoy trying to show that PSOE are a bunch of losers; Zapatero, the experts say, giving the impression that the elections are tighter than we may think, so there's the real peril that conservatives may actually win. Hence leftists should either go to vote or go to vote.
Hence both parties, PP and PSOE, are interested not in spreading a programme but in telling who the winner was. If our leader wins, we are sending a message of security and confidence, our voters will go to the polls and our opponents' voters will stay home. Whatever our leader says in the debate, even if he says he eats parrot for thanksgiving, is acceptable, as long as it sounds cool. And, same way there are 'banana republics' (Spanish pejorative term to denote countries run by dictators or oligarchies) we have a 'soccer-love monarchy' as well. Once the debate is over, everyone, press, mass media, analysts, let's talk only about who won it, trying to make the best of the metaphors, the closer they are to soccer, the better.
There is something we clearly have to learn from the Americans in this respect. There was yet another Obama - Clinton debate last night, and once it was over, the main interest was not to decipher who had won it. Discussions in the media dealt with programmes, arguments, the main lines of the campaign... nobody paid real heed on whether Clinton was dressing in mango (or whatever colour she was wearing) so as to look less agressive or whether Obama overcame Clinton's pressure with the elegance Kobe Bryant dribbles away from his opponents.
It is true that many democrats will end up voting for the candidate they see best prepared to beat McCain in November (and, here, I daresay Obama will beat Clinton as he is seen as the most likely winner versus McCain), yet, in any case, here in the USofA, still, debates are able to generate debate, offer discussions on proposals and even be somewhat unpredicatable. In this sense, as in political participation, Americans are still one step beyond.
