For the last weeks, we’ve had political candidates debating on live TV. As expected, there has been a lot of negative criticism that the media did not focus on the right questions or that it did not highlight the key issues, thereby trivialising the debates.
Whether this criticism has merit or not, one thing most of the critics seem not to pay much attention to is the profiles of the audiences. Going by the past elections, we can argue that the average Kenyan voter is an emotional voter. Perhaps that explains why Azimio and Kenya Kwanza coalition builders consider what their partners bring to the table in terms of their constituency, and not ideas or a plan to fix the country.
Understanding this is instructive in one’s criticism of the way the debates are organised and structured. In fact, those questioning why the presidential and deputy presidential debates were split based on opinion polls ratings completely fail to realise that the media only reflects what society wants.
Those who criticise the content of the debates in terms of the questions asked also fail to realise that the candidates – at least the smart ones – already know how emotional the voters are and their job is to target the undecided by imploring them to see why they are the best candidates.
Nobody has put this better than NTV journalist James Smart. The news anchor, who co-moderated the deputy presidential debate with KTN’s Sophia Wanuna, had an interesting take on the criticism around their moderation. He argued that debates are neither interviews nor panel discussions. In his view, the debate serves a political function where the candidates set what he called “their game plan” and circle back to their talking point.
On content, he argued that it is the work of the opposing candidate to bring about topics they’re comfortable with. He proceeded to give an example of how UDA’s deputy presidential running Rigathi Gachagua zeroed in on state capture and corruption and tried to lure Azimio’s Martha Karua into the arena.
Karua, on the other hand, steered clear of that conversation, choosing to speak clearly and calmly because she wanted to address an audience that thought of her as a “combustible” character. In short, both candidates, in Smart’s view, came to address different audiences.
Since both candidates knew that the debate was beamed live to all households throughout Kenya, they chose to focus on the emotions of their target audience – Karua choosing to remain calm and composed throughout to evoke emotions of maturity and suppressing what James Smart terms “combustible” character.
By doing this, one would imagine she was targeting the undecided voter who loves everything about her but questions her ability to be cooperative with her boss or other party leaders in her camp.
Gachagua meanwhile chose to show his camp as independent and without the baggage of what he termed “state capture” – meaning he was keen on the undecided voter who is unsure of whether to support him and UDA but hates the idea of state capture or a government by proxy.
So, when you put those two dynamics into place, you see clearly that indeed the organisers of the debate did a good job. Lastly, scholars have theorised that through manipulation of the tone, and framing of their message, candidates can invoke specific emotions in their listeners. Emotions are argued to have a direct effect on turnout. Indeed, our voting pattern over the last couple of elections reveals that voters are emotional.
To argue, then, that certain key topics were not brought out is to fail to understand the uniqueness of the electorate in Kenya. If the media is to play a role in issue-based politics, the platform is not exclusively the presidential debates but in everyday reporting of stories touching on mwananchi.
In short, if the media does its job effectively year in year out, they don’t need to work extra hard during presidential debates. After all, it is an event occurring every five years and we have real issues every day.
