The experience of going to a presidential debate

Tuesday the 29th in the morning. There is no doubt that it was the most important event of the day and everyone wanted to participate. A long line of students formed in front of the G building of the Externado de Colombia University to take one of the positions that would allow them to see and hear the presidential debate firsthand.

With computers in hand, a group of people verified the identity of the students and handed the cards to the attendees on a first-come, first-served basis, to ensure that everyone who entered had a seat.

Comparisons are odious, but it is an exemplary organization: in my years as a public university student, an event with guests usually goes wrong because the auditoriums are allowed to enter beyond capacity, with people sitting in the hallways and stairs. Later on, more differences would be noticed.

Naturally, the 850 seats in the main auditorium were not enough. Some members of the university community sat in the plazas of the university, where speakers were installed to listen to what was happening inside. There was also broadcast via Zoom for those who were far from college.

Of course, not everything that happens in the debates is captured by closed-circuit microphones or cameras. For example, the connection that politicians can establish with the public or the repudiation that some of their statements arouse.

The eight candidates who will appear on the May 29 card were invited to this debate. Two of them have been recurring faces in this type of space: the candidate Ingrid Betancourt, from the Green Oxygen party, and the candidate of the Historical Pact, Gustavo Petro.

Candidate Petro, a graduate of that private university, already had many supporters inside and outside the auditorium. In fact, those who arrived at the entrance of the university were met with flags and a large banner that read “Externadistas with Petro”, whose owners were devotedly waiting for them at the exit of the auditorium.

Every proposal and every gesture of his was greeted with cheers from the young people who entered the premises; in addition, he managed to make good use of the time granted to him. That was no surprise.

The surprises came from the other candidates, starting with Ingrid Betancourt. Contrary to previous debates, where she has been heavily criticized for her constant false starts, Externado students seemed to welcome what she had to say.

There were several moments when Betancourt managed to genuinely move the audience. One of them was during the aftershocks about Icetex. She couldn't help talking about her father, former Minister of Education Gabriel Betancourt Mejia, founder of the entity. However, when he was going to talk about the purpose of the entity, his time was up.

The organizers of the debate had a strict but effective mechanism for controlling the candidates' times: they displayed the timer on the screen and had a traffic light system with colored reflectors on the stage floor. If the candidate was over time, from the master's degree they closed his microphone and he had to give up the floor. The audience applauded to confirm that the shift was over.

With small gestures to the audience and to Darío Fernando Patiño, the presenter of the debate, Ingrid obtained additional extensions. In addition, the audience was silent when listening to her and applauded her with affection. On the way out, some students commented that “for her proposals I would vote for her, if I had the opportunity”.

When the candidates were given the opportunity to highlight something about a competing candidate, Ingrid Betancourt highlighted the attitude shown by Enrique Gómez Martínez, the candidate of the National Salvation Movement, to the refusal of media such as El Tiempo or El Colombiano to invite him to the debates. He even recalled that in Medellín, after arriving at the studio and not being received, he made his own “debate” through social networks.

Unlike what happened in the other debates, the heir to the flags of conservative Álvaro Gómez Hurtado was invited to this space. As the dynamics of the event forced candidates to talk about proposals and perspectives, students were able to listen to Gómez Martínez's views. For example, attendees were surprised that he agreed to the end of the war on drugs.

The answers that Gómez Martínez gave about the possibility of subsidizing education or reforming the fields of the countryside, something in which the other candidates had greater openness, did not go so well. Nor did it agree with Betancourt's proposals on positive discrimination against women.

Faced with such answers, some students made gestures of reproach with their hands or shouted “Facho!” from their seats, but they were quickly silenced by the rest of the spectators and even teachers, who stood up to scold the air: everyone and no one in particular.

Another candidate often missed in other debates is Pastor John Milton Rodríguez, of the Colombia Justa Libres movement. Accustomed to dealing with the public, you could tell that he enjoyed contact with an audience willing to listen, even if he disagreed with him — ignoring the rebuke he received when he answered a question about abortion with the phrase “we protect both lives”.

At the end of the debate, Rodríguez had something to say about the experience to his opponents and students: “Please, let's not accept debates where they don't include all of us; let's be supportive and let us all express ourselves.” The candidate was applauded by the entire public in full.

A third candidate who is also not considered in the debates is Luis Pérez. Enthusiastic, he attended the venue with the best he found in his closet and with the controversial flag of Colombia with the cannabis leaf. Some spectators reacted with someone else's grief and others were more crazy.

The majority of those present, millennials and centennials, succeeded in keeping on their cell phones a copy of the strangest moment of the debate. Those who failed to unlock their cell phone quickly enough asked the candidate to show it again. In that chabacano tone, most of Perez's conversation with those present was held.

The debate required three candidates who are constantly invited to these spaces, given their great intention to vote among citizens: Rodolfo Hernández, from the League against Corruption, Sergio Fajardo, winner of the consultation of the Centro Esperanza Coalition, and Federico Gutiérrez, winner of the Team's consultation for Colombia.

It is possible that, in addition to the excellent organization of the university, which extensively curated more than 600 questions on three specific thematic axes and kept the rules of conversation at bay, the debate also retained a certain height due to the caliber of the absentees, who in previous events have shown their ability to turn a space like this in a toxic and unpurposeful spectacle.

However, to test this hypothesis, it will be necessary for another educational institution or media outlet to manage to hold a debate of similar characteristics to which the eight applicants attend.

KEEP READING: