COMMENT Malaysia is home to a functioning democracy which embodies the culture of debating in Parliament, Malaysia is home to Asia’s Debate Champions in both the university and high school debate circuits, and obviously Malaysia is home to some of the most active cut-throat keyboard warriors which zealously put their ideas forward, yet it baffles me when those who hold the echelons of power claim that, “Debat bukan budaya kita”.

If you're still guessing who made that statement, i suggest that you befriend Google.

Politics is messy. But in a world that is increasingly careless about politics in many ways, political debates are how our representatives can show they care. It requires them to put themselves on the altar of truth. It’s a daunting proposition. But one that Malaysia not just needs, but also deserves.

Political debates are foremost about transparency. In a stage shared between rivals, lies are unlikely and often deadly. A speech addressing party supporters often has less than true or misleading statements lacking substance. An individual can claim to be many things and make promises without any basis. A debate means that your opponent is right there to hold you accountable. It also means that you are there when your opponent lies.

Notice how YB Rafizi Ramli and YB Khairy Jamaluddin were meticulously fact checking one another on stage during the Sinar Harian Debate.

Political debates, hence, also represent the maturity of any representative. The very decision to participate in a public debate takes a brave and accountable representative who isn’t scared to defend one’s record. It showcases the willingness of the candidate to be scrutinised openly in public by an unforgiving opponent in the name of transparency and honesty.

We need more audacious politicians like YB Khairy and YB Rafizi who do not shy away from the noble challenge.

Political debates are also about creating a platform where everyone has an opportunity. The US presidential election of 1960 came at a decisive time in American history. John F Kennedy ( photo ) was the relatively unknown senator from Massachusetts. He was young and Catholic and both of those were bad things for his candidacy.

Nixon, on the other hand, was the incumbent vice-president with years of experience in highest levels of US and international politics. The country was engaged in a heated Cold War with the Soviet Union, which was leading the space race. Fidel Castro’s rise in Cuba meant communism was only a road trip away.

Meanwhile, the struggle for civil rights and desegregation divided the nation in unprecedented ways. A month and a half later, Americans turned out to vote in record numbers. John F Kennedy won the popular vote. Polls revealed that more than half of all voters had been influenced by the presidential debates.

One fine morning and an opportunity to engage changed everything for one of the most beloved presidents in the history of world and United States.

Magnetising the public to intellectual discourse

Political debates not only enrich the political elites but also magnetises the public to intellectual discourse. When two or more rivals face off, their strength and weaknesses become clearer. It is a very human experience that viewers far away can relate to. More importantly, they are now forced to address a wider range of issues than they usually would in controlled public speeches or interviews.

It means that our representatives have less capacity to hide their beliefs. In a world where there is no such face-off, politicians can simply keep their mouth shut on many things.

When conversations happen, more and more people are drawn in. Especially when they realize these are things that deeply affect them. Political Debates are broadcasted over TV, radio, blogs, forums, social network and every means of communication. The simple act of creating interest around the debates has the ability to attract people who would otherwise not care or care less about what representatives have to say. Or about holding them accountable.

It makes citizens politically conscious. This consciousness means that the quality of politics in Malaysia will be brought to the next level.

In a debate, someone who wants to be a representative has the opportunity to communicate future plans on issues. These are issues that affect the whole nation. It allows voters to see beyond race, gender or self- interest. You cannot win a debate by hate speech. You cannot win a debate by appealing to your race.

The United States perhaps is best known for its culture of presidential debates. Where the highest elected representatives have to debate their opponents at every level to convince the voters why they deserve to win. UK general elections are also characterised by highly charged political debates.

Four debates staged for the 2015 election played a great role in the whole process. Thirty-eight percent of people reported to have decided who they will vote for based on the debates. Australia, Ireland, France and many other countries have an equally strong political debating culture.

But to claim that it is a western phenomenon would be a wrong claim. During the 2014 Afghan Presidential election, the five candidates responded to two hours of questions from Afghan journalists and debated each other. The debate was widely televised by Tolo news channel and covered by all major news outlets around the world. It was a sign of maturity from one of the most challenged democracies.

Afghan presidential candidates showed the same political maturity post election in a country where divisiveness often runs deeper than many parts of the world. This debating culture also extends to developing countries like Brazil and Mexico. Even credible leaders like Dilma Rousseff in Brazil are compelled to participate in pre-election debates.

What’s holding Malaysia back?

The East African nation, Kenya hosted its first presidential debate in 2013. The seven men and one woman who wanted to lead the country participated in a very critical exchange lasting for hours. I wonder what’s holding Malaysia back?

Why don’t individual parties have presidential debates for their political nominees? Umno’s presidential election should include this, especially since independence, its winner will end up being the key-holder to the corridors of power.

Political debates are also about respect. Respect for rivals. It is an acknowledgement of common goal for one’s country. It’s an admission that office belongs to people and the individuals claiming the desire and capability to serve the people acknowledge each other’s strengths and deficiencies. It means they are ready to challenge themselves any given day and become better at representing people and that they aren’t just hungry for power by all means.

They disagree on many things but converge on a common objective which is to make Malaysia a better country. Imperfection is human, Democracy is about tapping into the collective conscience for collective welfare and political debates are about putting oneself on the line to help the voters decide who best synchronises with all such needs.

Malaysian democracy isn’t perfect But Malaysians have every reason to believe it can be. Far too long have Malaysians put up with subpar and unaccountable representation. It is not only a shame, but it means that Malaysia is every day, much less than what it deserves to be. Malaysia is defined by ample gifts of nature, hardworking citizens and uncanny ability to make the world fall in love with it.

If politics claims to represent people, it simply does not make sense why our representatives don’t debate what they believe in. It's time we change this for the betterment of our nation.

Debate is our culture, even if it's not, it's high time that we make it ours.

We deserve it.

SYED SADDIQ SYED ABDUL RAHAMAN is a Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIA) law student and was crowned Asia’s best debater in May during the United Asia Debate Championship.