‘Debates’ could benefit from some actual debating

Bringing candidates together for face-to-face engagement might be worth a try

Last Wednesday, I had the opportunity to moderate a two-hour debate among Peterborough-Kawartha provincial riding candidates sponsored by the Kawartha Chamber of Commerce and Tourism. For the candidates, it was their ninth in a series of debates that have come to take on many of the characteristics of a travelling cabaret.

Consider the parallels. The troupe travels from venue to venue in a series of single-event performances. The performers take part in event promotion designed to attract crowds. They rehearse their presentations, hoping to generate favourable audience response. They take their place under stage lights supported by a sound system. They come to know the other members of the cast and quickly become familiar with their lines and stories. On the surface, they are polite to each other, although ego-based rivalries within the troupe often lie just below the surface. Of course, they routinely read their reviews.

The format for debates involving more than two candidates has changed little over the years. Opening statements delivered by the candidates are typically written in advance. These get the show started and permit the definition of political territory, but they are safe and rarely offer any news. Questions from the event sponsor often follow. They feature sector grievances, most of which will be known to the candidates, some of whom may receive the questions in advance. Sponsor questions have more to do with briefing and lobbying candidates than they do with debating.

Questions from the public follow and this is where the cannons can sometimes come loose. Public questioners who are not ringers for a particular candidate are driven by some form of perceived injustice, a state of mind amplified by the energy of the crowd, the power of the microphone and the presence of the media. Stepping up to speak in front of the candidates can be nerve-wracking, framed as it is by the competing internal pressures of confrontation and civility. Many public questioners are so hyper-focused that they don’t hear the candidates' answers.

Finally, closing statements by the candidates serve to round out the engagement. These statements were once designed to permit candidates a chance to focus their thoughts on the key issues they heard from the audience and each other, but they have since become pre-packaged stump frequently divorced from the tone and content of the event.

In most situations, the debate is not actually a debate. It is more akin to a set of serial individual statements. The candidates generally sit side by side without facing each other. Their positions on an issue are put forward one at a time. They speak to an audience or questioner, but rarely to each other. While one candidate may respond to what he or she has just heard from a competitor, the typical format does not allow for any extended assertion or rebuttal. It is largely surface talk without depth.

There have been a few experiments over the years designed to permit debaters to actually debate, particularly when there are only two or three candidates, and this seems to me to be the most likely way for event organizers to produce a more interactive and illuminating experience. Organizing a debate with a format that compels face-to-face, direct and extended engagement by candidates on only a few topics might be worth a try. Audiences will learn far more about the different capacities and perspectives of the candidates. Better still, candidates are likely to find such a format far more enjoyable – less like a cabaret circuit and more like a genuine and meaningful discussion.

David Goyette is a writer, communications consultant and political advisor.