"1. 'debate' - 1 a formal discussion, often in front of an audience, in which two or more people put forward opposing views on a particular subject. 2 any general discussion on a subject, not necessarily in one place or at one time. (Chambers Dictionary)." So the two debates, ahead of the March 9 election, that we've just had on Spanish television were not really debates at all, because they were not discussions or anything like them. What they were was slanging matches. The particular subject under debate was "whether my party is better than yours" - not "what we need to do to make Spain a better place". This is smart of the two political parties, because it has been repeatedly demonstrated that people like watching people slagging other people off. This was like Celebrity Big Brother, with two political celebrities slagging each other off. Everyone can react to that, and they watched in their millions. There was also an almost complete lack of political content, of ideas. This may be because the advisers have probably told the politicos that "people don't like ideas. If you actually express one, then people might not vote for us. Avoid all political content - at best, it will give our opponents another stick to beat us with when we duly fail to deliver, at worst it will lose votes". So it was all pretty empty. And the media then follow up with empty analysis - who wore the best tie? Who showed less nerves? Who used a certain word more or less? The whole election has been turned into one of style, not of substance, so that people will vote on the colour of a tie. It's simple, it's easy to understand, it's fun, and it's extremely dangerous - politics and the media working hand in hand to make sure that we, the voters, have the thoughts they want us to think, even though our own personal experience tells us that something's not quite right - I know the economy's booming, but wait a moment - I don't have enough money to get to the end of the month. In fact, most of the media reaction to the debate, and to the whole pre-election process, has been,not about politics, but ABOUT THE MEDIA ITSELF: the media reporting on which candidate is manipulating the media best. The supposedly serious media, and the opinion-shapers behind them, are especially guilty in this respect, casting the entire business as just another entertainment showdown, casting politics (which has the potential, when you think about it, to be a serious business) in its own audience-friendly terms. (The footage used of political meetings etc. by the TV channels apparently has to be authorized for use by the political parties, which is why you never see an empty seat: I'm serious about the "working hand-in-hand" thing.) Celebrity Big Brother, indeed.

Hence the picture. It may look like fighting, but they're probably all just dancing together.

There's a long list of things which might change all this, of which here are three:

1. Reconceiving the political system as a game of three, rather than just two players.
2. Accountability for political actions, i.e. the chance that you might lose your job if you tell the public a lie. Transparency.
3. A media that could say what it wanted.

Etcetera, etcetera. Dream on. At least in the States, you get the impression that some real issues are being discussed. It's just a shame, what mainstream political discourse has come down to in this country, when you think of the marvellous subtlety of thought, vision, concern, willingness to compromise, and energy it took, just thirty years ago, to engineer its transition to democracy.