The Debate Avoidance of Bongbong Marcos: A Case of Obvious Rhetoric or Strategic Choice?

As a voter and citizen who has observed and monitored the political campaigning of the candidates, the debate avoidance of Bongbong Marcos has been a topic of prolonged discussion and speculation. Contrary to the common narrative, Bongbong Marcos, the incumbent president, did not face a ban from participating in debates; instead, he chose not to engage in debates. This decision has sparked intense debate and speculation among the public, as many have called into question whether this was a strategic choice or a manifestation of an ill-thought-out rhetoric.

Why Bongbong Marcos Did Not Join Debates with Leni Robredo

The question of why Bongbong Marcos did not join the debates with Leni Robredo and other presidential candidates has garnered significant attention. The lack of formal debates may be interpreted as a strategic choice rather than a deliberate exclusion. As Bongbong Marcos holds considerable respect and public trust, it is more likely that he did not feel the need to participate in such debates.

An Observant Citizen's Perspective

As a concerned citizen, one might ask, 'Why not join the debates if these were productive struggles for knowledge and betterment?' The answer might lie in the stark reality of the current political landscape. During the campaign, the focus seemed to be more on personal attacks rather than substantive policy discussions. Many observers felt that the debates were not about clarifying platforms and policies but were instead filled with narrow-minded and destructive rhetoric solely aimed at attacking the personality of the opposition.

The Nature of the Debates

The debates, if they were to be held, would have been pointless, in the opinion of many. The candidates, despite belonging to different parties, exhibited a monolithic approach to governance, characterized by narrow-minded and destructive rhetoric. The conversations were not focused on crafting a better future for the nation but were, instead, an exercise in self-destruction. This lack of dialogue reflects a broader trend in modern political campaigns, where substantive issues are often overshadowed by personal attacks and idle talk.

Leadership and Moral Integrity

Regarding the candidates' personal and leadership qualities, some citizens expressed frustration over the candidates' lack of a clear vision and plan for the nation's future. None of the candidates, regardless of their positions or platforms, seemed to offer a coherent and tangible roadmap for development. Additionally, the absence of mutual respect and a willingness to engage constructively reflects a unhealthy political environment.

The Decision to Avoid Debate

The question remains: was President Bongbong Marcos's decision to avoid these debates a strategic choice or a reflection of a deteriorating political rhetoric? Some argue that Bongbong Marcos did not need to participate in such debates because of his proven track record and public trust. Depicting these debates as opportunities for wasted time or self-destruction highlights the need for a more thoughtful and constructive approach to political engagement.

Conclusion

The debate avoidance by President Bongbong Marcos remains a topic of significant discussion. While some view it as a strategic choice, many others see it as a reflection of the current state of political discourse in the nation. As voters, it is crucial to look beyond the rhetoric and demand substantive engagement and transparent policies from all candidates.