Sask. Party leadership debates show insular nature of party

To suggest that the Saskatchewan Party has suddenly become top-down driven and insulated from the public it strives to serve belies two important realities.

First, all governing parties are top-down driven and become increasingly insular as time goes by.

Second, the Sask. Party government has always been exactly top-down-driven, although that’s always been successfully masked by the gregarious Premier Brad Wall.

An exceptional communicator, one can likely count on one hand the number of times Wall either stormed away from or ducked a scrum in his decade in the premier’s office.

It created the perception of a government party that was open and listening — an approach that mostly served Wall and the party rather well.

But remove Wall from the equation and the top-down driven controlling nature of this Sask. Party becomes less endearing. Not that it was always the perfect approach given Wall’s infamous stubborn streak, most recently on display in his refusal to admit any wrongdoing on the Global Transportation Hub (GTH) and Regina Bypass.

So what the party is now left is with is Wall’s top-down approach without Wall’s likability or panache. The outcome has been evident in the clumsy way Sask. Party headquarters has handled plans for its candidates to interact with the public via its plans for a leadership candidates’ debate.

Sent out Friday, a party news release rather condescendingly observed there had recently been some “chatter in the Twitterverse” about leadership debates and proclaimed it would go ahead with plans it made a month ago for six leadership debates across the province. Media are welcome to attend and “of course, are welcomed to live-stream or broadcast those debates,” the Sask. Party generously offered.

How magnanimous. But given that the party is actually picking a premier to run Saskatchewan for presumably the next three years, might there be some value in a debate that isn’t a completely party-run function? Might there actually be some value in that “Twitterverse chatter” of those premier wannabes facing off in a forum in front of real journalists, similar to what we might see during a general election campaign where party leaders are obligated to speak on behalf of their parties?

While the slightly smug tone was gleefully embraced by some party supporters who share the view that those with the audacity to critique their government are obviously the partisan enemy, what would have been far better would have been to reach out to the media, who simply feel they have the right to do their jobs.

To their credit, the majority of candidates quickly recognized the problem. Gordon Wyant, Tina Beaudry-Mellor, Ken Cheveldayoff and Alanna Koch all made it known on their newfangled Twitterverse machines that they are quite willing to debate anywhere in any format. (Scott Moe seemed to stick to the party line that media should broadcast these Sask. Party-driven events.)

By the weekend, there did seem to be some awareness on the part of the party that maybe, just maybe they struck the wrong tone. However, that didn’t stop the party from forging ahead, announcing Monday a schedule for debates that included: Swift Current, Oct. 19; Melfort, Oct. 26; Saskatoon, Nov. 4 (at the party’s annual convention); North Battleford, Nov. 16; Weyburn, Nov. 30; and Regina, Dec. 7.

Interestingly, all but the last two occur before the candidate nomination deadline. And all but the last one occur during the fall sitting, although on Thursday nights — convenient, at least, to the MLAs.

One gets that voting Sask. Party members need to hear from their candidates.

One also gets this is pretty much the same failed debate format the NDP used in 2000 when its government was replacing Roy Romanow with Lorne Calvert that helped confirm how insular that party had become. But given that the Sask. Party debate to date has mostly been about who hates the carbon tax and loves Brad Wall and rural Saskatchewan more, doesn’t the party have a broader obligation to its public?

Evidently, the party doesn’t see it that way. Maybe it never did.