Globe and Mail ( Canada )
Canada's case of presidential debate envy
Rudyard Griffiths
Oct 15, 2012
Every four years, when the U.S. presidential debates dominate the media,
Canadians can’t help but come down with a severe case of political envy. As
money-drenched, advertising-saturated and toxically partisan as U.S.
politics have become, the final debates of the 18-month-plus election cycle
are
irresistible viewing.
The debates’ allure is more than just political theatre. They create those
rare moments when the political carnival that is U.S. politics comes to a
shuddering stop. Shorn of their focus-group-tested cardigans, carefully
crafted stump speeches and floating teleprompters, the two candidates are
forced to spar with each other, a sword’s length apart, prodded by savvy
moderators. Mass media meets mass democracy and the formula works: The
candidates’
foibles and strengths are revealed, their ideas are pressure-tested and
undecided voters decide.
The success of the U.S. presidential debates – their varying formats,
different subject areas and frequency – isn’t happenstance. For going on a
generation, Americans have wisely relied on arm’s-length groups to organize
their presidential debates. First the League of Woman Voters, and now the
Commission on Presidential Debates has determined the participants, venues,
format and number of events. The campaigns and the media have a say, but the
process is driven by a third-party group which, in the case of the
commission, is ostensibly independent.
In Canada, it could not be more different. There is no third-party
organization to co-ordinate debates. Instead, all federal election debates are
organized by a “broadcast consortium” that negotiates the debate terms with
the very political parties that regulate their business through the CRTC, the
Broadcasting Act and host of other policy levers. Newspapers, new media
and the public have no say in a process that is so opaque it makes Mitt
Romney with his controversial tax returns and Swiss bank accounts look like a
paragon of public accountability.
As lamentable as Canada’s undemocratic approach is, what really shames us
is the sorry sop that ends up on our living-room televisions.
Imagine a runoff debate in the campaign’s final week between the top two
party leaders as measured in the polls? Imagine questions put by actual
citizens, as will be the case in Hempstead, N.Y., on Tuesday night? Imagine
transparent rules that determine who can take part in the debates? Imagine
simultaneous French-English debates?
No, our fate, carefully scripted by the broadcasters and parties, is two
utterly conventional debates. One in French completely dedicated to Quebec
issues. Each featuring a gaggle of leaders reciting formulaic talking points
and scripted attack lines. Each uninspiring, unexciting, unedifying –
everything the front-running party leaders (and future CRTC masters) want out
of
a low-risk election debate.
Robo calls aside, there is much that we can be proud of about our federal
election system. We have wisely eschewed the long-standing American practice
of politicizing our bureaucracy. Public financing of our elections, from
the national campaigns to individual ridings, is the law. The banning of
corporate and union donations ensures an equity of political influence that
ennobles our democracy. And, while still controversial, strict limits on
third-party advertising prevents our elections from being hijacked by
single-issue groups and moneyed interests.
The sensible way we run our democracy ensures that we will remain one as
compared to an America that seems set on backsliding into the Gilded Age.
Yet, before we condemn the sorry state of U.S. democracy outright, let’s
acknowledge what they do best, including hosting terrific presidential
debates.
Thankfully, here in Canada, the call for an independent debates commission
is more than a rallying cry of academics. In political parties, among
people who care about more and better public policy discussion, pressure is
growing for a full-fledged reform of our debates.
For anyone who thinks otherwise watch Tuesday’s presidential contest. Then
ask yourself why Canadians should tolerate anything but a series of
outstanding federal election debates, independently organized in the public
and
opposed to the parties’ interests, the next time we head to the polls.
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
