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.
