A Face To Face & A Taste Of The Contenders Ahead Of The Vote

The long awaited face to face between the two presidential hopefuls eventually took place in spite of previous delays which cast doubts about it happening at all. But somehow the two contenders managed to have time and guts to show up and confront each other in what is widely seen as landmark event which will give a boost to our incipient democratic life. With all the trappings of democracy already in place, a televised debate between the major contenders is a good step along the way of implementing democratic tradition in the country. In this regard, the mere act of holding the debate is in itself a big achievement. From now on future polls will all see candidates staking their victory on similar debates, changing the current ways of campaigning and how candidates appeal to voters. This is about the symbolic significance of the event but what about the quality of last night's debate? And how was the performance of the two candidates?

Well the debate kicked off with the two candidates introducing themselves and speaking briefly about why they run for the post and what they would do once elected. At this stage we were expecting the two candidates to paint themselves in concrete straightforward terms and talk about tangible issues, after all this introductory moment will determine how they are going to connect with the viewers throughout the debate and decide the feel at the end. Well, this didn't happen and we saw sweeping generalities and vagueness take over instead. It was clear that AOD was speaking to us from the above, assuming the position of Imam or preacher who speaks final truths and not required to argue for his point or be persuasive to get his message across. For a while I thought the voice of AOD was coming from another world as he reiterated the common universal truths of justice and freedom, etc. He gave me the impression that we were seeking his favor not the other way around. Sidioca on the other hand was more down to earth, he was quick to relate to the viewers as he went on to explain the reasons behind his candidacy and outline his plans for good governance based on plurality and the consolidation of the national unity. Even though he was not necessarily specific about these issues, he outdid AOD by speaking of himself, his objectives and calling voters to choose him. I felt the guy was talking to me and that he has something to say, whether he means it or not that's another issue.

After the brief introductory notes Ould Mamma laid down the axes of the debate which he summarized in the following six points:

National Unity
Good Governance
Fight against Poverty
Education
Economy
Foreign Policy (I don't know why he calls it foreign relations)

As you can see the six points were so interconnected and overlapping that the candidates were most of time repeating themselves. In fact at some point in the debate AOD went out of his "Ghebla" evasiveness and stated it point blank in the face of the journalist that the questions were repetitive, saying that he has already answered the question put to him. But this is another story which cuts deep into the bureaucracy reigning in the national TV and which shuts off good journalists from taking on important assignments like this one.
Let's see each candidate's take on these Axis one by one:

National Unity:

AOD: national unity is a prerequisite for the existence of the state and its prosperity (what! It's not by exaggerating and blowing issues out of proportion that we make sense and meet thorny crises like this one under consideration. AOD is once again victim to his evasiveness and ambiguity. In fact I was expecting him to tell us why there's a national unity crisis and how to remedy it, not simply the kind of hackneyed descriptions he never tires of repeating.) National Unity has suffered from incidents in 1989 and 1990 and I have always defended it out of my love for the country. One way to tackle it is through national reconciliation and spirit of forgiveness and our religion can provide us with the means to do that. I propose a reconciliatory and fair solution away from vengeance and with all parties onboard. (this is not what I have been waiting for. Well, religion and reconciliation can be used in all contexts but AOD left us in the dark about how they can address the problem of national unity. He chose to be silent on this. We will have to wait until his answer to a third question about the coexistence among the components of society to see concrete actions and measures. At this point AOD calls for an organized return for the refugees in Senegal and Mali and promised to compensate them and preserve their dignity. )

Sidioca: our future is dependent on our national unity, without which there'll be no freedom, rights or prosperity in the country. ( Strong emphasis and yet no clear policy or a platform of action. Frankly, Sidioca was echoing AOD and the common denominator between both is lack of conceptual clarity, so much so that one is inclined to think they don't belong to this part of the world. Even a second-rate journalist from "Peshmerga" could have done better.)

On the divisive issue of Language which threatens national unity AOD and Sidioca were so out of imagination as to endorse Taya's obsolete policy. They both defended his Center of National Language without further elaboration or development and said they will abide by the constitution as far as Arabic is concerned. Strangely enough I felt more at home with the former dictator's one-sided view on the issue than with their distorted logic. They were both out of touch with the realities on the ground that they couldn't finish their arguments at certain points. It seems that our hopes for fundamental change may be reduced to mere revival of old policies from Taya's era. Sad.

On the third and last aspect of the national unity question entitled " Coexistence between the Social Components", the two candidates were finally able to come up with concrete measures to sort out the problem of slavery. There was a unanimous stance on the urgent need of fighting slavery in all its forms and manifestations. Both candidates were to a large degree convincing in their views as well as their commitment to the eradication of slavery, each proposing a package of measures ranging from economic assistance to juridical outlawing of the inhuman practice. AOD was first to speak out his mind on the issue and revealed plans to criminalize the practice of slavery, a move reiterated by Sidioca.

Good Governance:

Both candidates were once again entertaining more or less the same views about how to better serve and run the country. It has to be said, though, that throughout the debate only this point was completely exhausted by both as each presented a clear policy for addressing the problems which plague the administration, i.e. favoritism, anarchy, spectacular corruption, etc. They vigorously defended the rule of law and the need for independent judiciary and the separation of powers. AOD stood out when he empathized the impact of the current state of lawlessness on the poor, passionately and sincerely highlighting how the enfranchised segments of society are the most negatively impacted by the violation of law and inefficiency of state institutions. Sidioca on the other was sharply voiced on the role of the executive power in the status quo and went some way in criticizing the former regime's record. He also proposed to set up a ministry charged with revamping the administration and warned against politicizing the administration.

Economy and Fighting Poverty:

If you have been counting on the two candidates' much publicized economic background and experience to effect a real economic transformation in the country you must then brace yourself up for a big disappointment. Up to this point in the debate I kept saying that when we reach the economic axis the two will be able to make up for their failure to be convincing on the other issues, but nothing could have been far from the truth. In fact the two "experimented" economists and former ministers were at a complete loss when they tried to piece together a reliable purchasable economic programme. AOD seemed like to stand for some sort of mix between protected and market-oriented economy while Sidioca was championing the familiar home-made version of liberal economy. Attempts to look academic and provide an expert perspective on the challenges of turning around the economy simply couldn't work. This is why AOD division of the country to three economic regions (rural East and South, Coastal West and Mineral North) was just an intellectual luxury which couldn't seem to influence his analysis of poverty, escalating unemployment, regional isolation, poor or nonexistent infrastructure, etc. The same goes for Sidioca's "Territory Management" which was incongruent with his "local associations" and "Women Associations", revived Taya's economic fragments which in no way can form a coherent and full-fledged policy.

Before going to the next point I have to say in passing that I was extremely moved by AOD's honest and heartfelt defence of the youth and the poor and his awareness that poverty is key to any attempt to tackle our economic melt down. He repeated time and again that to improve our under achieving economy, poverty has to be rooted out from NKTT and other cities nationwide and that meeting the demands of the youth is the way to national stability.

The last issue was Education which none of the two candidates seemed to have given a thought at all. It was real shame.

Twin Brothers Or Sworn Enemies:

There are moments in the debate when I thought thing are going to be hot and the exchange is set to be bullish and more aggressive. Each time, it was AOD who starts the tirade pointing the finger of blame to his rival, accusing him of having "rumuz alfassad" onboard and stuff like that. Sidioca cared to retort but avoided heated confrontation throughout. I thought may be we're going to slip to a more spirited and vigorous debate in which each rival puts up stiff resistance and makes the show more lively, engaging and interesting. But this could never have happened because these were very brief outbreaks of anger and they were quickly put under control.

Yet AOD and Sidioca have perhaps more affinities than their apparent differences. Just take time to think of these points which can be seen as political portrait for both:

- Both are economists without economic agenda
- Both are former ministers and veteran politicians with no idea of what goes on in the country
- Both are old in their sixties
- Both are first round winner with less than 25%
- Both are bad public speaker, the worst command of Arabic and French imaginable (XOY ente vem): this is a tentative glossary in Arabic (Ely ente mnein):

Drop Out (تسرب): AOD calls it (تسيب) while Sidioca (هجرة)

Election (انتخابات): Sidioca calls it (انتخاب)

Ahmed wants to impress with his Hassaniya so he uses slang like (الدكس، بوفرططٌ)

Sidioca keeps repeating all the time (يااللٌ)

As you see, one of the two will be our president, so let's hope he'll replay the face to face and see his shortcomings. This is just to leave on a happy note.

mom