Sparring partners trapped in a sterile fight and a stale format?

In 1993, Felipe González, the charismatic Socialist Party leader who had already run the country for 11 years, was bidding for his fourth term in office. His party was mired in corruption scandals, and its popularity was at a historic low, but González's personal standing with the electorate was still high. In the run-up to the elections, he agreed to two live, televised face-to-face debates with José María Aznar. The leader of the center-right Popular Party (PP) was still largely unknown to voters, and González was confident that he could wipe the floor with his green challenger. But González grossly underestimated his adversary, failing to grasp Aznar's understanding of the power of television. After two hours of closely fought combat, Aznar emerged from the debate victorious. The former tax collector from Valladolid turned the tables on González that night, emerging from the scrap a prime minister in waiting (he would lead the PP to victory in 1996), and making television history in the process.

"This time round there is a clear winner: more than 80 percent of voters believe that Rajoy will win"

"We need a model that offers more narrative tension. This would benefit not only those watching, but the candidates themselves"

The debate marked a milestone in Spanish television and political history. As the political observer and academic Fernando Vallespín points out, the clash had something of David and Goliath about it: "This was the first time that the seemingly untouchable González had been beaten in a debate, and by a political nobody. The outcome seemed a foregone conclusion in favor of González; while for Aznar the stakes couldn't have been higher: his political survival rested on his performance in the debate."

This evening sees the Socialist Party's prime-ministerial candidate, Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba, and the PP's Mariano Rajoy go head to head in what is only the second general election campaign to have included a televised debate since then (Rajoy refused to discuss the issues with José Luis Zapatero in 2004 but did do so in 2008).

But 18 years after Aznar's emergence, the electorate is older, if not wiser; what's more, the outcome of the elections is, we are told, a foregone conclusion, and it is generally agreed, even by many in the Socialist Party, that Rubalcaba can do little to reduce the Popular Party's more than 16-percentage-point lead in the polls.

The election campaign officially kicked off on November 4, but both candidates have been on the stump since Rubalcaba was selected as the Socialist candidate shortly after Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero's announcement in April that he would not be running for a third term. In that time they have been sending out messages to the growing numbers of unemployed, civil servants, students and pensioners, trying to raise their profile. But it was not until Friday that the pair could really get to work and directly ask the electorate at large to vote for them, organizing rallies in bullrings or village squares, and visiting markets in search of babies to hug. And the rules of the game say that the televised debate is the high point of the race to occupy the Moncloa Palace, the prime minister's official residence.

What can the electorate expect this evening? Both parties expect a replay of the bout between Zapatero and Rajoy in 2008, while the political pundits are clear that the event will be no Ali-Frazier moment in Spanish politics. Both candidates are familiar to voters, who have heard their respective arguments many times. "A debate of this kind is unlikely to attract many viewers. Both men are very well known, and have traded blows hundreds of times in Congress. Neither has anything to win or lose in the debate," says Xesca Vidal, a communications expert and psychologist.

In general, interest in televised debates is greatest when there is a new candidate, as happened with Nixon and Kennedy in 1960, or between Obama and McCain in 2008. Óscar López and Esteban González Pons, senior figures in the Socialist Party and PP respectively, say that this debate will be more relaxed and could therefore be livelier than the encounter between Rajoy and Zapatero in 2008.

But is the TV debate such a decisive battleground? The two candidates, like politicians around the world, have largely failed to use new media to capture the electorate's attention. Fernando Vallespín says that we have become used to instant access to information. "The radio was the key in the 1950s, and in the 1960s through to the beginning of this century, television was key. Now of course it is the internet and social networks. The parties have still not fully grasped the potential of new technologies that allow candidates individual access to potential voters, enabling them to distinguish between different age groups and sectors."

It may be, says Jordi Rodríguez Virgili, that television's day is over. The constraints of the medium, with previously agreed questions and strict time limits, hardly makes for a dynamic discussion. "It's going to be a very boring debate," says Rodríguez Virgili, who argues that Spanish television needs to look to the United Kingdom or the United States for inspiration. "These kinds of debates need to bring in journalists to ask questions, as well as to allow the public to intervene. We need a more dynamic event, without lowering the tone to that of a reality show where candidates are presented as though they were two boxers about to get into the ring."

María José Canel, a professor of political communication at Madrid's Complutense University, also believes that the traditional televised debate has seen its day. "We need a model that offers more narrative tension. This would benefit not only those watching, but the candidates themselves. A debate is about telling people what the candidates stand for, who they are; people want to know what kind of leader they would make. This is what debates have to reveal."

Unlike in the previous elections where there have been debates, this time there will be no second round: this is a one-off bout. As in 2008, the event is being organized by the not-for-profit Spanish Television Academy, which has close links to private television channel Antena 3 and is selling broadcasting rights for half a million euros. Rajoy refused to take part in the debate if it were organized by the RTVE state broadcaster, which the PP has accused of bias against it. "This makes no sense, given that the director general's appointment is agreed between the PP and the Socialist Party," says Vallespín.

Veteran broadcaster Manuel Campo Vidal, who will be chairing the debate, says that while the outcome of the elections may be a certainty, it is still important for both candidates to put their arguments before the electorate. He also believes that having only one debate will increase the tension. "They will be forced to define their strategies. They are putting everything on one game, and the fact that there will be no audience or journalists means they will have to engage with each other."

The timing of the debate was agreed with the two candidates on the basis that they will have nearly two weeks to overcome any major errors they might make on the night. Coller says that staging the debate early on also makes sense as a way of formally signaling the start of the campaign, and by putting the main issues into the public perception. Vallespín says he would like to see a second duel closer to election day for "greater impact." But Coller argues that the one-off approach will make for better television. "It will concentrate their minds. They will have to make sure that they get their points across clearly to their target audiences: civil servants; pensioners; the self-employed; business owners; students." Vallespín says that Rajoy, given his lead in the polls, will likely play safe, and repeat his message up to now: that the Socialists have no credibility, and that a change is needed, while avoiding getting into details about policies. "Rubalcaba's challenge will be to distance himself from the government."

The experts say that the impact of televised debates on the electorate tends to be exaggerated, but that candidates tend to get their message across more effectively than through speeches, rallies, or posters. Canel says that debates are particularly important in reaching out to the undecided. "The candidates are able to present a picture of themselves, of their ability to argue a point and to defend themselves in the face of criticism or the unexpected." She adds that debates have a bigger impact when there are a large number of undecided voters. While the latest polls put the PP more than 16 percentage points ahead of the Socialists, almost a third of voters, around 8.5 million, say that they have not decided on one candidate or the other.

As for the impact on those who have decided who they will vote for, Canel explains that "they influence what is known as selective perception: voters pay more attention to what their candidate does well, and to the mistakes of the rival candidate. It's a psychological mechanism that limits how much the viewers allow themselves to be influenced," she says, adding that up to five percent of voters will change their mind during an election campaign.

That said, there is a great deal of skepticism about tonight's debate. "This time round there is a clear winner: more than 80 percent of voters believe that Rajoy will win. It doesn't make any difference if there is one debate or two; what's more, Spain's television debate culture is characterized by dull formats: they are always arranged in agreement with the candidates."

Debates always follow the same routine, agrees Xesca Vidal, and an experienced candidate will know how to seize the initiative during each of them: "The first phase is during the negotiations about the format, time, and place of the debate: if the talks fail, one accuses the other of intransigence; the second phase is the debate itself; and the third is the assessment of the media the following day."

Media coverage is vital and can be heavily influential. "Not everybody will have watched the debate, never mind in its entirety, so the opinion of columnists and commentators is very important in establishing who won," says María José Canel. She describes this as the spiral of silence, whereby the opinion of the majority absorbs and silences that of the minority. "There is a psychological effect. Many people change their position and jump ship to the perceived winner; they doubt their own judgment. They may question whether they are a good judge of character."

Whatever the limitations of such debates, Vallespín believes that they are essential. He says that the media should go further, and insist on debates that include all the candidates, not just head-to-heads. "This would make for much more interesting debates, because it would be more difficult for the candidates to control what was going on. The more flexible the format, the more likely we are to see candidates improvise."

Rodríguez Virgili, however, questions the value of such debates, pointing out that under the Spanish system, the electorate has no role in the primaries to select candidates. "We vote for lists of candidates for Congress that have been decided by the parties. These kinds of debate are a way of personalizing the campaign, that's all."

Virgili also doubts whether debates that included all the candidates for the premiership would make for more interesting television. "They have tried this model in Germany, and stopped in 2002: it became known as the round of the elephants; the debates were interminable, and very tedious."

The outcome of the elections may be pretty much decided, but with a third of voters still undecided, both candidates in tonight's debate know that there is still much at stake. Rubalcaba has little to lose, and can be expected to give the performance of his career.