Yesterday, like every Wednesday, a government control session was held in Congress. The script repeats itself. A member gets up, takes his page and reads a small text that minister questioned already knows because regulation requires that such questions are presented previously written. The minister of shift — dependent on subject matter — stands up and reads his answer. It is a longer intervention and rarely answers question posed. He tends to ramble with grandiloquence exposing data that demonstrate kindness of his management. So far everything is a bit tedious, but normal. The strange thing is that n congressman asks and, for that, he also reads. And so, attention!, minister closes Minidebaterespondiendo also with a text already written.
The issues raised by this soporific procedure are diverse. The first verse is about lack of memory of our politicians. Is it really that hard to memorize a simple question? The second casts a great doubt. Has minister written it or passed it from his cabinet? Only this second option explains blunt language, although correct, of an intervention lacking emotion and, refore, impossible to convince anyone. The third question is more pitiful. If member already has his written question, did he already know answer or did he not hear first answer? The fourth issue is most important, because if everything is in writing, in name of austerity and efficiency, his would be to register texts at conference table, publish se for citizens to know and save a lot of money in diets and transportation Of honourable Members. Nor would it be necessary for officials and, much less, transcribers. Why, if everything is already written before?
This is not an anti-political attack, quite opposite. Parliamentarianism is center of public life and re have been great politicians and better speakers, able to convince with ir eloquence and ir arguments to ors. It doesn't matter that sometimes it is read. There is Barack Obama, who left nothing to improvisation, but who lived his speeches. The important thing is that politicians express mselves, exchange arguments and, now that we have so much audiovisual communication, take advantage of those moments to speak to political rival, but also to people. It is already said by experts in oratory: The important thing is to explain complex concepts in a simple way. and try to convince.
Just listen to nine-minute feminist discourse of Oprah Winfrey (undocumented) at this year's Golden Globe Gala to understand importance of oratory, value of knowing how to convey reasons and feelings in equal parts. Spain has had great speakers in politics. Today too, but y are scarce. Our education system despises this discipline. Neverless, a Spaniard, Antonio Fabregat, was crowned in 2015 as best university orator in world. It's not about our politicians becoming actors. It would suffice to exercise a little-instead of aiming at Masters to which y do not come-and learn to listen to be able to refute. They would at least raise level of citizen interest in politics. Of course, at worst, it's what y don't want.
You can follow country opinion on Facebook, Twitter or subscribe here to Newsletter.