There were two obvious disadvantages to Monday night’s televised debate between leadership hopefuls Mmusi Maimane and Wilmot James. The first was that the spectacle was essentially meaningless – given the fact that the DA leadership tussle is a closed contest. The public has no say in who wins; delegates to the DA’s federal congress this week will make the decision. However riled up viewers may have become in favour of one or the other candidate while watching the debate, there’s nowhere to plough that energy except into strident declarations on social media.

The second disadvantage was that the debate was aired on the Afrikaans-medium DSTV channel KykNet. It was thus only available live to those with access to satellite TV, though subsequently posted on YouTube in two parts, here and here. Debate moderator Waldimar Pelser – whose day job is as editor of Afrikaans newspaper Rapport, and who proved an excellent choice of host – explained that the programme Insig had landed the broadcasting coup simply because they invited the two contenders first. Nonetheless, the choice of platform would have done little to shake the traditional perception of the DA.

Despite both of these points, one big winner for the evening was surely the DA itself. The party was essentially granted free publicity, by being able to advertise its policy positions in front of a live TV audience. DA leaders have in the past repeatedly asked to debate ANC leaders and been rejected; Monday’s event displayed the party’s commitment to the notion of public debate and enabled it to create a sense of transparency around its succession battles.

But that’s not to say that the party emerged entirely unscathed. The nature of a debate like this means that candidates need to differentiate themselves from each other on policy points – while both currently serve as leaders in a party which needs to present a coherent ideological front to voters. The debate made it clear that there are fissures, frictions and differences of opinion within the DA.

One point where this was particularly evident was on the subject of the DA’s economic policy. The DA has been criticised over the past year for sidelining discussions about economic growth in Parliament in favour of grandstanding about Nkandla. James said on Monday night that he had led the process of developing the DA’s plan for growth and jobs, and he expressed his concern that “that plan has been forgotten, actually shelved by the current leadership”. Suddenly, James said, there was no more discussion on the subject.

“The DA is drifting strategically,” James suggested.

Maimane said that he disagreed “fundamentally”. He pointed to the march the DA carried out in February last year to Luthuli House to call for the establishment of 6 million jobs. Such a march, he said, was indicative of the fact that the party has not lost sight of its focus on jobs.

“That wasn’t strategic drift,” Maimane said. “That’s sticking to our principles.”

The choice of a march as a counter-argument to James’s accusation of policy neglect was perhaps telling. Maimane is often accused of being a candidate strong on showy rhetoric but low on substance. James is, if anything, the opposite. There was a marked contrast in the way the two presented themselves on TV. Maimane wore a natty suit; James favoured a Madiba-style shirt, which is often his sartorial choice in Parliament too.

Maimane was emphatic, gesticulating, engaged; James presented himself in a far more low-key manner, his hands folded, speaking slower, more softly and more deliberately. Maimane invoked his personal identity at one stage, saying that he grew up poor; James eschewed all mention of his own history, sticking to dry policy points.

It was, as one Twitter user put it, a showdown between Professor and Preacher.

When it came to questions of liberalism, both candidates espoused slightly confusing and contradictory views. In a Q&A feature published a day earlier in the Sunday Times, James had expressed the opinion that bail should not be granted to the accused in rape cases. Questioned about that during the debate by Pelser, James tried to clarify that he would like to “re-state that”, but ended up saying essentially the same thing: “What I would recommend is that the default position in violent crimes is no bail, unless the accused and the defence can make a case for bail to be granted.”

“But surely this is a basic right in terms of the Bill of Rights?” Pelser asked.

“The granting of bail? Yes, it is,” James acknowledged.

If James was happy to tear up a pretty fundamental page in our law books on that matter, Maimane was having none of it. “There have been many people who have had allegations against them,” he said. “We must come from a place where our Constitution guarantees rights, even for people who have been accused of rape.”

Right. But in the very next question, the two had shifted positions. Now James was the hardline defender of the Constitution, while Maimane was playing fast and loose.

The issue at hand was whether either candidate would support a referendum on gay marriage, or the death penalty. Maimane said that while he was personally supportive of gay marriage and against the death penalty, he would support referendums on these matters.

“Ultimately, as a democrat, I still uphold the rights democracy upholds,” Maimane said, for the first time seeming to become a bit flustered. “If the people want to vote on it, the people must vote on it.”

James’s response was withering: “I think Mr Maimane doesn’t understand our Constitution at all.” The Bill of Rights, he said, could not be made conditional or subjected to a public vote.

Maimane, clearly in hot water now, nonetheless persisted: “The ultimate right given to the people of this country is that it must always be their voice that must be given expression,” he said. He pointed out that the DA had in the past proposed a referendum on e-tolling – seeming to suggest that there was little difference in asking the public whether they wanted to pay extra taxes on roads and whether they wanted people to die for violent crimes.

Maimane was undoubtedly taking a popular – populist – position here. No doubt the vast majority of South Africans would love a referendum on the death penalty, or gay marriage, and no doubt the “liberal” positions on both would be soundly rejected. As some pointed out on social media subsequently, however, one wonders whether Maimane would apply the same referendum enthusiasm to a public vote on whether land should be expropriated without compensation.

Elsewhere, Maimane was evasive in the best tradition of a politician who grows more savvy with each public appearance. Asked by Pelser: “Does God speak to you about the way you lead the DA in Parliament?” Maimane dodged a straight answer, responding: “It’s important. It’s my own personal choice.”

His church, he reiterated, did not set the laws of the country; it was possible to be religious and liberal. James agreed, up to a point: “There’s no contradiction between being religious and being a liberal democrat,” James said. “But what is very important is that the boundary between church and state should be observed.”

You’d be an idiot to bet on anyone other than Maimane taking the party leadership this weekend, but if the contest was being fought on the firmness and conviction of their liberal policies, this round would have gone to James. But James lacks Maimane’s fire, and next to Maimane he looks tired and old.

What a treat, nonetheless, to see South African politicians slug it out on points of policy in the manner that international leaders are required to. The take-home message for anyone who watched the debate would surely have been: more, please. May more parties allow us to glimpse their leadership tussles in this way – and ultimately, may politicians from different parties debate each other in this way too. The greatest benefit is to the public. DM